The next 'war on drugs'...

[ElNono]

I still stand by what I said. For future reference, feel free to ask for clarification if you don't get it.

I think the statement was as clear as it was bullshit.


I never said there was a law stating such purpose. Did you think I did?


The purpose of copyrights and copyright law is to make intellectual property tangible.

Anything else you said that you want to claim you didn't say?


I did quote an SC Justice that stated purpose for copyright law, comparing intangible property to tangible property.

I still haven't seen in this thread a quote from a Supreme Court justice (or any justice, really) "that stated purpose for copyright law is to make intellectual property tangible".

But thanks for posting a quote that recognizes that intellectual property is actually different from tangible property.

BTW, if you actually read what you post, you'll realize that's not a Supreme Court justice.

[boutons_deux]

EU Internet czar piles on, says SOPA is bad news

"speeding is illegal too, but you don't put speed bumps on the motorway."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57362770-17/eu-internet-czar-piles-on-says-sopa-is-bad-news/?tag=mncol;posts

[mouse]

Soon people will meet in basements to share software,music,and films you can't stop human behavior if you could, we would not have access Alcohol .

[Winehole23]

we would not have access Alcohol. how true. stick-toit-iveness beats all. :toast

[mouse]

Right now some amateurs in they're mother's basements are ready to pick up the slack.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Picture031.jpg

[Useruser666]

Apparently Lamar Smith, sponsor of the SOPA bill has been using someone else’s photos without proper accreditation which violates the licensed use of the photo (copyright violation).


Read below:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/In-copyright-debate-Smith-criticized-from-2648232.php

I wonder if it would have been possible under SOPA or PIPA to have Lamar Smith's website shutdown and his finances (campaign?) frozen?

[Blake]

I think the statement was as clear as it was bullshit.

Sorry you don't like what Justice Woodbury says.

:depressed


Anything else you said that you want to claim you didn't say?

This is a sorry, desperate troll job to save what little face you think have left after everything that has flown in it, or you are just flat stupid.

It is very clear I meant copyright law in general. I did not that say or imply that there is a specific law that says "the purpose is to make IP a tangible asset."

To wit:


....The basic purpose of IPR is to guard the rights of an author for his work and simultaneously permit the general public to view his creativity. IPR law also puts time limits on the rights given to these authors so that a balance is maintained. Intellectual property, like any other form of property can become a material of trade, can be owned, sold as well as bought.

http://www.articlesbase.com/intellectual-property-articles/intellectual-property-its-meaning-and-development-in-india-219402.html

just lol wow. :lol



I still haven't seen in this thread a quote from a Supreme Court justice (or any justice, really) "that stated purpose for copyright law is to make intellectual property tangible".

It's physically impossible to make an idea tangible. Already admitted it. Already clarified it. Already posted Justice Woodbury's quote making a very crystal clear metaphor comparing IP to tangible property.

Desperate troll is desperate.


BTW, if you actually read what you post, you'll realize that's not a Supreme Court justice.

Duly noted.

Correct title is Massachusetts Circuit Court Justice.

[ElNono]

Sorry you don't like what Justice Woodbury says. :depressed

I was talking about this statement:


The purpose of copyrights and copyright law is to make intellectual property tangible.

There's no need to get depressed for being wrong, IMO.


This is a sorry, desperate troll job. It is very clear I meant copyright law in general. I did not that say or imply that there is a specific law that says "the purpose is to make IP a tangible asset."

So what you're saying is that you didn't mean what you wrote. If you didn't mean that perhaps next time you shouldn't write it. Then there would be nothing to correct!


To wit:
just lol wow. :lol

I still don't see a copyright mandate or law that states that the purpose of it is to make intellectual property tangible (unlike the Copyright mandate that I posted, which clearly doesn't establish such purpose).

Oh wait, you really didn't mean what you wrote.


It's physically impossible to make an idea tangible. Already admitted it. Already clarified it. Already posted Justice Woodbury's quote making a very crystal clear metaphor comparing IP to tangible property.

So the purpose of Copyright and Copyright laws isn't to make intellectual property tangible. Got it. :tu

Justice Woodbury isn't wrong, he's just not saying what you think he's saying.
What Justice Woodbury is saying is that Intellectual Property should be afforded similar protections (through copyright law) that tangible property is afforded through other laws. That they're comparable, doesn't mean they're actually equal (from a legal standpoint, they're certainly not) and ultimately, it's irrelevant to the point at hand, since it doesn't addresses the actual purpose of Copyright, which is clearly established in the Constitution.

[Heat Miser]

This ElNono vs Blake is Epic!

:corn:

[Useruser666]

Lamar Smith is lucky he didn't pass the law that would shut down his own website! Busted!

http://www.vice.com/read/lamar-smith-serial-copyright-violator

[Blake]

So the purpose of Copyright and Copyright laws isn't to make intellectual property tangible. Got it. :tu

True, it's scientifically impossible.

Keep tooting your horn over that victory. :tu


Justice Woodbury isn't wrong, he's just not saying what you think he's saying.
What Justice Woodbury is saying is that Intellectual Property should be afforded similar protections (through copyright law) that tangible property is afforded through other laws. That they're comparable, doesn't mean they're actually equal (from a legal standpoint, they're certainly not) and ultimately, it's irrelevant to the point at hand, since it doesn't addresses the actual purpose of Copyright, which is clearly established in the Constitution.

I think the metaphor comparing IP to tangible property is crystal clear. I also think the explanation I copied/pasted explains what I really meant to say works fine as well.

If you want to read it a different way, at this point it would not shock me.


:lol Not trolling, IMO (maybe a bit, but you can't play saint here either)


Troll be trolling.

[ElNono]

True, it's scientifically impossible.

Keep tooting your horn over that victory. :tu

Will do :tu

[mouse]

Troll be trolling.

How can someone with over 40,000 posts be considered a TRoll?


I lost respect for you esse.

[mouse]

Will do :tu


I shall edit my 2012 political poster of the month list.

[Blake]

Will do :tu

Catching me saying that copyright law can perform God-like magic was neat.

Please do. :tu:tu

[Cry Havoc]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-legislation-that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/

Next up: It's as bad as (maybe worse than) SOPA.

[Winehole23]

pick some issue that is morally so urgent and overpowering, that Congress is willing to throw the constitution under a bus, and voters will applaud them for it.

Like terrorism or child molestation.

[Winehole23]

throwing rights away is very dangerous territory, folks

[Winehole23]

hopefully some of our judges still have their heads screwed on straight

[Bill_Brasky]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-legislation-that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/

Next up: It's as bad as (maybe worse than) SOPA.

Makes me fucking sick that these pieces of shit would actually use the "child molestation" card to try and convince people to pass this useless, intrusive, shit legislation.

[ElNono]

"Protect the children" has always been the avenue to cram shit like this through. Sad, but frankly, what can we do?

[Wild Cobra]

"Protect the children" has always been the avenue to cram shit like this through. Sad, but frankly, what can we do?
Some things definitely go overboard, like innocent family photos of naked kids. I wonder how a screening of the 1963 movie Cleopatra would go over these days?

[Winehole23]

it would flop again. how is the dvd doing?

[Winehole23]

"Protect the children" has always been the avenue to cram shit like this through. Sad, but frankly, what can we do?piss and moan about it the rest of our lives, most likely

[Wild Cobra]

it would flop again. how is the dvd doing?
I don't know, but I watched it on Netfix a few weeks ago. In the 60's, there was no immoral thoughts of showing naked babies. Hell, I even remember seeing... was it National Geographic program... showing topless women, on regular broadcast TV.

As I think about it, it was the 1959 movie Solomon and Sheba (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053290/) I watched that had Sheba's newborn child shown naked.

I like to watch those classic movies at times. Netflix is great for that.

[Winehole23]

Elizabeth Taylor was a hottie.

[Winehole23]

is a hottie. you can still watch her films.

[Wild Cobra]

Elizabeth Taylor was a hottie.
Absolutely. So is Gina Lollobrigida (http://www.google.com/search?q=Gina+Lollobrigida&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=CWs&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=A34aT4n9OYWFiAKf9czkCA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CA4Q_AUoAQ&biw=1153&bih=962) in Solomon and Sheba.

http://s11.allstarpics.net/images/orig/0/d/0dnmli6w86jslm60.jpg (http://www.allstarpics.net/pic-gallery/gina-lollobrigida-pics.htm)

[Winehole23]

I'm more of an Sophia Loren/Barbara Stanwyck acolyte, but yeah, Gina Lollabrigida looks great.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm more of an Sophia Loren/Barbara Stanwyck acolyte, but yeah, Gina Lollabrigida looks great.
You can find them on Netflix also. I find it a worthwhile subscription.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/netflixwindow.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/netflixwindow0002.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/netflixwindow0003.jpg

[Winehole23]

got Netflix, thx!

[Winehole23]

Ava Gardner. Lauren Bacall. Ingrid Bergman...

[Winehole23]

Dolores Del Rio

[Winehole23]

so many great screen beauties

[Winehole23]

do you like Mae West?

[Wild Cobra]

do you like Mae West?
Sure. I love the women who show their shape in a corset.


When I’m good, I’m very good. But when I’m bad I’m better.
~ Mae West

[Winehole23]

Amen.

So long as they like wearin one...

[ElNono]

MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml)

"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"

- Chris Dodd, Chairman MPAA

[ElNono]

As pointed out in the comments section of the link above, at which point does actions like that cross the line of bribery and blackmail?

[Blake]

Petition Asks White House to Probe MPAA's Chris Dodd Over Warning

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/idUS217169227120120123

[greyforest]

MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml)

"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"

- Chris Dodd, Chairman MPAA

fascism. corporations expect to control the government.

[velik_m]

The Copyright Lobby Absolutely Loves Child Pornography

“Child pornography is great,” the man said enthusiastically. “Politicians do not understand file sharing, but they understand child pornography, and they want to filter that to score points with the public. Once we get them to filter child pornography, we can get them to extend the block to file sharing.”

The date was May 27, 2007, and the man was Johan Schlüter, head of the Danish Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). He was speaking in front of an audience from which the press had been banned; it was assumed to be copyright industry insiders only. It wasn’t. Christian Engström, who’s now a Member of the European Parliament, Oscar Swartz, and I were also there.

...

This puts the copyright industry’s efforts in perspective. In this context they don’t care in the slightest about children, only about their control over distribution channels. If you ever thought you knew cynical, this takes it to a whole new level.

The conclusion is as unpleasant as it is inevitable. The copyright industry lobby is actively trying to hide egregious crimes against children, obviously not because they care about the children, but because the resulting censorship mechanism can be a benefit to their business if they manage to broaden the censorship in the next stage. All this in defense of their lucrative monopoly that starves the public of culture.

It’s hard to comprehend that there are people who are so shameless that they would actually do this. But there are. Every time you think the copyright lobby has sunk as morally low as is humanly possible, they prove you wrong.

http://torrentfreak.com/the-copyright-lobby-absolutely-loves-child-pornography-110709/

[Winehole23]

FileSonic disables file sharing: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57363594-93/filesonic-disables-file-sharing-in-wake-of-megaupload-arrests/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57363594-93/filesonic-disables-file-sharing-in-wake-of-megaupload-arrests/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20)

[Heat Miser]

Can you find these on Netflix?

http://www.beyondtreason.com/images/BeyondTreason_MoviePoster.jpg

http://www.stephanscottlay.com/Images/warez/moon_cover2.jpg

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/dvd/files/legacy/archives/Spurs.jpg

[mouse]

Unless NetFlix can get movies like these 5 days after release pirating will go on forever.

http://robinollysays.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mi4-ghost-protocol.jpg

[JoeChalupa]

I'd rather just wait and pay $1.29 to watch it. I hate watching those bootlegs with peoples heads bouncing around.

[Winehole23]

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/new-media/item/25449-forget-sopa-europe-is/

[Winehole23]

roundup of previous ACTA posts on SpursTalk:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119781&highlight=acta

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186624&highlight=acta

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138431&highlight=acta

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139163&highlight=acta

[ElNono]

Europe has been succumbing to these stuff lately... in Spain, Ley Sinde was eventually passed when the new government walked in. What's interesting in that case, is that Spaniards (like Canadians) paid a 'copyright tax' on blank media that was passed onto the content creators as a way to "offset" the misuse of such media for piracy (completely arbitrary obviously, seeing there's no realistic way to know how many of that media is really used for that purpose). Well, now a strict anti-piracy law passes, and the "tax"... well, it stays. It's just a smaller amount now.

I think the difference between Europe and the US will eventually come down to privacy laws. Countries like Germany and Switzerland are very, very strict with their privacy laws, and so the implementation of some of that stuff in those countries will likely not fly.

[Winehole23]

Does using cloud computing services based in the United States create a risk of US law enforcement access to people's data? The US Department of Justice (DOJ) seems to be trying to placate international concern by saying one thing in international fora; but it says something quite different in the US courts.


On January 18, a senior Justice Department official tried to reassure (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/vizard/us-reaffirms-commitment-to-cloud-privacy-despite-patriot-act/?cs=49554) companies and people around the world that hosting their data in the United States creates no increased privacy risk for them from the US government. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz noted: "Cloud computing has important advantages to consumers (but) doesn't present any issues that have not always been present. Certainly not regarding Internet service issues, but even before that."


Apparently, the DOJ is reacting to decisions by foreign entities to drop US-based services due to concerns about US government access, including (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/it-fud-blog/2011/12/bae-systems-office365.html)British (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/it-fud-blog/2011/12/bae-systems-office365.html) (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/it-fud-blog/2011/12/bae-systems-office365.html)company (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/it-fud-blog/2011/12/bae-systems-office365.html) (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/it-fud-blog/2011/12/bae-systems-office365.html)BAE (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/it-fud-blog/2011/12/bae-systems-office365.html) dropping Microsoft Office 365 and the Dutch (https://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/091611-european-data-concerns-cloud-outlook-250988.html) (https://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/091611-european-data-concerns-cloud-outlook-250988.html)government (https://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/091611-european-data-concerns-cloud-outlook-250988.html)' (https://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/091611-european-data-concerns-cloud-outlook-250988.html)s (https://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/091611-european-data-concerns-cloud-outlook-250988.html) hesitation about allowing its contractors to use US-based cloud services. In the past, Denmark (http://www.datatilsynet.dk/english/processing-of-sensitive-personal-data-in-a-cloud-solution/) and Canada (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/patriot-act-and-privacy-laws-take-a-bite-out-of-us-cloud-business.ars) have also voiced their concerns about the level of protection the United States can provide to their citizens’ data. EU public tenders of cloud services are (http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/eu-us-data-privacy-storm-blows-cloud-course-news-509134) (http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/eu-us-data-privacy-storm-blows-cloud-course-news-509134)also (http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/eu-us-data-privacy-storm-blows-cloud-course-news-509134) (http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/eu-us-data-privacy-storm-blows-cloud-course-news-509134)avoiding (http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/eu-us-data-privacy-storm-blows-cloud-course-news-509134) US cloud services for the same reasons. European (http://news.techworld.com/security/3322757/europe-cloud-vendors-cleaning-up-with-data-protection-fears/)- (http://news.techworld.com/security/3322757/europe-cloud-vendors-cleaning-up-with-data-protection-fears/)based (http://news.techworld.com/security/3322757/europe-cloud-vendors-cleaning-up-with-data-protection-fears/) companies, which have to comply with EU data protection law, see this opportunity as a competitive advantage, as do Australian (http://www.cloudtweaks.com/2011/07/your-data-in-australia-is-subject-to-the-us-PATRIOT-act/) (http://www.cloudtweaks.com/2011/07/your-data-in-australia-is-subject-to-the-us-PATRIOT-act/)cloud (http://www.cloudtweaks.com/2011/07/your-data-in-australia-is-subject-to-the-us-PATRIOT-act/) (http://www.cloudtweaks.com/2011/07/your-data-in-australia-is-subject-to-the-us-PATRIOT-act/)services (http://www.cloudtweaks.com/2011/07/your-data-in-australia-is-subject-to-the-us-PATRIOT-act/).


Yet the DOJ's reassurances ring hollow. While the DOJ may spin its position one way to try to appease foreign audiences, its actual position is quite clear where it really matters: in US courts when it is trying to access subscriber information held by US-based cloud computing services. Indeed, the DOJ's position in its court filings is that very little, if any, privacy protection is available against US government access to the records of users of US-based cloud computing services.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/department-justice-misdirection-cloud-computing-and-privacy

[Winehole23]

EFF overview of the DMCA, twelve years on:

https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca

[velik_m]

Polish parliament:

http://img.rtvslo.si/_up/upload/2012/01/26/64852857_poljska.jpg

[Winehole23]

I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly."

"As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands."

"Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications."

"This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this mascarade." https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/ACTA_rapporteur_denounces_ACTA_mascarade

[Winehole23]

January 27, 2012 | By Maira Sutton (https://www.eff.org/about/staff/maira-sutton) and Parker Higgins (https://www.eff.org/about/staff/parker-higgins)


We Have Every Right to Be Furious About ACTA



If there’s one thing that encapsulates what’s wrong with the way government functions today, ACTA (https://www.eff.org/issues/acta) is it. You wouldn’t know it from the name, but the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is a plurilateral agreement (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/2011-review-developments-acta) designed to broaden and extend existing intellectual property (IP) enforcement laws to the Internet. While it was only negotiated between a few countries,1 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/we-have-every-right-be-furious-about-acta#footnote1_irxfuyq) it has global consequences. First because it will create new rules for the Internet, and second, because its standards will be applied to other countries through the U.S.’s annual Special 301 process. Negotiated in secret, ACTA bypassed checks and balances of existing international IP norm-setting bodies, without any meaningful input from national parliaments, policymakers, or their citizens. Worse still, the agreement creates a new global institution, an "ACTA Committee" to oversee its implementation and interpretation that will be made up of unelected members with no legal obligation to be transparent in their proceedings. Both in substance and in process, ACTA embodies an outdated top-down, arbitrary approach to government that is out of step with modern notions of participatory democracy.

The EU and 22 of its 27 member states signed (http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-signed-by-the-eu-lets-defeat-it-together) ACTA yesterday in Tokyo. This news is neither momentous nor surprising. This is but the latest step in more than three years of non-transparent negotiations. In December, the Council of the European Union—one of the European Union’s two legislative bodies, composed of executives from the 27 EU member states—adopted ACTA (http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-adopted-by-eu-governments-now-in-eu-parliaments-hands) during a completely unrelated meeting (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111219/02385917123/eu-council-quietly-adopts-acta-hiding-it-agriculture-fisheries-meeting.shtml) on agriculture and fisheries. Of course, this is not the end of the story in the EU. For ACTA to be adopted as EU law, the European Parliament has to vote on whether to accept or reject it.

In the U.S., there are growing concerns about the constitutionality of negotiating ACTA as a “sole executive agreement”. This is not just a semantic argument. If ACTA were categorized as a treaty, it would have to be ratified by the Senate. But the USTR and the Administration have consistently maintained that ACTA is a sole executive agreement negotiated under the President’s power. On that theory, it does not need Congressional approval and thus ACTA already became binding on the US government when Ambassador Ron Kirk signed it last October.

But leading US Constitutional Scholars disagree (http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/academics10282010). Professors Jack Goldsmith and Larry Lessig (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502403.html), questioned the Constitutionality of the executive agreement classification in 2010:
The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.2 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/we-have-every-right-be-furious-about-acta#footnote2_swahapr)
(And by the way, we agree [pdf] (http://www.yjil.org/docs/pub/o-35-katz-hinze-ACTA-on-knowledge-economy.pdf).)
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/we-have-every-right-be-furious-about-acta

[Winehole23]

Ireland's version of SOPA to pass without parliamentary vote:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-01/25/sopa-ireland

[Winehole23]

Now that federal officials are done with the data they wanted to review after shutting down file-sharing site Megaupload, the fate of that data is in limbo. Users who had legitimate files on the site — work documents, photos, home videos and more — may see that information deleted as soon as this week.


Federal officials have reportedly told two storage companies in Virginia — Carpathia Hosting and Cogent Communications — that they may begin deleting data Thursday, The Associated Press reported. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/prosecutors-say-data-from-megaupload-users-could-be-deleted-beginning-thursday/2012/01/29/gIQAWDjDbQ_story.html)




Megaupload had been contracting with the companies to store the information, but can no longer pay those contracts because its assets have been frozen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/megaupload-data-could-be-deleted-starting-thursday/2012/01/30/gIQAeggGcQ_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop

[Winehole23]

* According to MPAA, box office revenues grew 25 percent from 2006 to 2010 from $25.5 billion to $31.8 billion.


* Data from PricewaterhouseCoopers and iDATE show that from 1998-2010 the value of the worldwide entertainment industry grew from $449 billion to $745 billion.


* From 1999 to 2009 music concert sales in the US tripled from $1.5 billion to $4.6 billion

* Consumers’ choices growing as more movies are produced jumping from 5,635 films produced globally in 2005 to 7,193 in 2009.


* BLS data also show entertainment sector employment also grew 20 percent during that last decade and 43 percent for those identified as independent artists.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79846477/The-Sky-is-Rising

[velik_m]

Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think
...
AGREEMENT + CIVIL VIOLATION = PRISON?: Count 2 is a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement claim, and references unknown parties as members of the conspiracy. Conspiracy entails an agreement to commit an offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. The act in furtherance need not itself be illegal, but there must be an agreement to do an illegal act. The list of overt acts show that the object of the conspiracy was infringement by Mega users. If Defendants agreed with each other to induce others to infringe, and Rojadirecta’s lawyers are correct that inducement is not a crime, there’s a conspiracy only to violate a CIVIL law. If the idea is that Mega conspired with its users to infringe, those users may or may not have been criminally infringing copyright. They were located all over the world, and may or may not have acted willfully, i.e. intended to violate U.S. law. Again, the government would basically have alleged an agreement to violate a U.S. CIVIL law, including by many people who are not subject to U.S. rules.

Is it a federal crime to conspire to induce others to violate a U.S. civil law?
...


http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6795

[Winehole23]

The EFF has joined forces with one of the companies from which Megaupload rented server space to try and figure out the best way forward for users whose content was not infringing on anyone's copyright. MegaRetreival.com (http://www.megaretrieval.com/) was launched today by the organization in conjunction with Carpathia Hosting and is now soliciting feedback from former Megaupload users who feel they were wronged. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/megaupload_user_data_retrieval.php

[velik_m]

Pirate Bay Founders’ Prison Sentences Final, Supreme Court Appeal Rejected

A few moments ago Sweden’s Supreme Court announced its decision not to grant leave to appeal in the long-running Pirate Bay criminal trial. This means that the previously determined jail sentences and fines handed out to Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström will stand.

November 2010, the Swedish Court of Appeal found three people behind The Pirate Bay guilty of criminal copyright infringement offenses.

Although Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström all had their prison sentences decreased from the levels ordered at their original 2009 trial, they were ordered to pay increased damages amounting to millions of dollars to the entertainment company plaintiffs.

Hoping to overturn the ruling, the three filed for a hearing of their case at the Supreme Court. Today this request was denied, meaning that the sentences as determined by the Court of Appeal are now final.

Peter Sunde, also known as Brokep, now awaits 8 months in prison. Fredrik Neij, also known as TiAMO, faces 10 months. Businessman Carl Lundström has the lightest sentence of 4 months. All will have to pay their share of a combined 46 million kronor ($6.8 million) in damages.

...


http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founders-prison-sentences-final-supreme-court-appeal-rejected-120201/

[velik_m]

Neil Young is right — piracy is the new radio

As an artist who probably makes a substantial income from licensing his music, you might think Neil Young would frown on piracy and file-sharing, but that appears not to be the case, according to an interview he gave at the Dive Into Media conference in Los Angeles. Instead of railing against file-sharers, Young called piracy “the new radio” because it’s “how music gets around.” The musician’s comment puts a lot of the hysteria about copyright infringement into perspective — as we’ve pointed out before, file-sharing and monetization aren’t mutually exclusive, and in many cases a certain amount of so-called “piracy” can actually be good for business, as authors, musicians and even game developers have come to realize.

...


http://gigaom.com/2012/01/31/neil-young-is-right-piracy-is-the-new-radio/

[Ashy Larry]

I hope they're as gentle as the last "war on drugs." Still can't get over the King of Crack, Ronny Reagan, pushing dope into the inner cities, while having his old lady on television saying "Just Say No."

If this new "war on drugs" goes like the last one, we're fucked ......

[Winehole23]

Federal authorities said Thursday they had seized and shuttered 307 domains, 16 allegedly engaged in unauthorized live sports streaming and the remainder accused of selling fake professional sports merchandise, including National Football League paraphernalia.


The seizure, the biggest to date under the Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown known as Operation in Our Sites (http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/library/factsheets/pdf/operation-in-our-sites.pdf) (.pdf), brings to more than 650 domains shuttered since the program began in June 2010. The latest seizures, which quietly began in October, were announced days ahead of Super Sunday, when the New England Patriots play the New York Giants in the NFL Super Bowl, one of the world’s most popular sporting events.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/sports-domains-seized/

[ElNono]

RIAA Wants To Scrap Anti-Piracy OPEN Act

"The Recording Industry Association of America found itself in an unusual position this week: opposing an anti-piracy bill that's gaining momentum in Congress (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/shoe-on-the-other-foot-riaa-calls-for-open-act-to-be-scrapped.ars) ... the RIAA argues the bill won't be effective at shutting down rogue sites. The trade group warns of 'indefinite delays' as claims of infringement are investigated. And it complains that the process envisioned by OPEN would allow for 'endless submissions by parties such as Google,' further gumming up the process. All the while, the alleged rogue site would be able to continue operating. The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.' The trade group complains that sites aren't held responsible for the infringing activities of their users, a rule the trade group says 'excuses willful blindness and outright complicity in illegal activity.' RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires."

[ElNono]

FORBES: You Will Never Kill Piracy, and Piracy Will Never Kill You (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/03/you-will-never-kill-piracy-and-piracy-will-never-kill-you/)

[Spurminator]

Right now, the industry is still stuck in the past, and is crawling oh-so-slowly into the future. They still believe people are going to want to buy DVDs or Blu-rays in five years, and that a movie ticket is well worth $15. Netflix is the closest thing they have to an advocate, but the studios are trying to drive them out of business as they see them as a threat, not a solution. It’s mind boggling.

[TDMVPDPOY]

why cant they just remove the "save as" and "download" button?

[mouse]

File sharing ends when I say.................

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Picture031.jpg

[Winehole23]

Among the treasure troves of recently released WikiLeaks cables, we find one whose significance has bypassed Swedish media. In short: every law proposal, every ordinance, and every governmental report hostile to the net, youth, and civil liberties here in Sweden in recent years have been commissioned by the US government and industry interests.

http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/05/cable-reveals-extent-of-lapdoggery-from-swedish-govt-on-copyright-monopoly/

[velik_m]

You Can’t Copyright Porn, Harassed BitTorrent Defendant Insists


A woman who says she was incorrectly accused of sharing copyrighted material on BitTorrent has filed a harassment lawsuit against a copyright troll. Porn outfit Hard Drive productions had demanded $3,400 to make their threatened lawsuit go away but their target not only says she’s innocent and harassed, but also that porn cannot be copyrighted. So, does filmed sex promote scientific progress or constitute useful art? A court may soon have to decide.
...

http://torrentfreak.com/you-cant-copyright-porn-bittorrent-defendant-insists-120206/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak% 29

Well that's an interesting defense... :lol

[velik_m]

Tribler Makes BitTorrent Impossible to Shut Down

While the file-sharing ecosystem is currently filled with uncertainty and doubt, researchers at Delft University of Technology continue to work on their decentralized BitTorrent network. Their Tribler client doesn’t require torrent sites to find or download content, as it is based on pure peer-to-peer communication. “The only way to take it down is to take the Internet down,” the lead researcher says.
...


http://torrentfreak.com/tribler-makes-bittorrent-impossible-to-shut-down-120208/

[Spurminator]

RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120208/01453517694/riaa-totally-out-touch-lashes-out-google-wikipedia-everyone-who-protested-sopapipa.shtml

[Winehole23]

interesting
(http://verdict.justia.com/2012/02/13/sopa-and-the-future-of-internet-governance)

[Blake]

.....It's a worthwhile goal; nobody can deny that there are an enormous number of such sites, that many of them make a great deal of money by trampling on the legitimate rights of copyright and trademark owners, and that the consequent damage to those rights holders is substantial....

Plenty of people denying there is damage done to rights holders

[ElNono]

interesting
(http://verdict.justia.com/2012/02/13/sopa-and-the-future-of-internet-governance)

Good read. Thanks for posting

[Winehole23]

Economics researchers at Wellesley College and U Minnesota have published a study showing that feature films' US box office returns are not correlated to BitTorrent sharing. They also show that shorter delays between the US exhibition and overseas releases result in less file-sharing -- that is, people outside the US download movies because they can't buy tickets to them.
http://boingboing.net/2012/02/13/bittorrent-doesnt-hurt-us-bo.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986299

[Spurminator]

The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's evolution, stupid
By Peter Sunde 13 February 12
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/13/peter-sunde-evolution

When I was 9 years old I got my first computer, an Amiga 500. It was the best computer ever built, with great graphics, amazing sound and seven times faster than the Commodore 64. One of my friends said that the Amiga was useless since you needed to boot it from floppies. On the C64 you could program without even a cassette.

Of course the C64 died while the Amiga flourished. The Amiga later died when even better technology came along. We all know how evolution works, except one industry that refuses to evolve: the entertainment industry.

Instead of looking at evolution as something inevitable, the industry has made it their business to refuse and/or sue change, by any necessary means.

In the case of The Pirate Bay, it's been particularly obvious. My fellow co-founders -- Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm -- and I were convicted in 2009 of contributory copyright infringement. Last week the Supreme Court of Sweden refused to hear our appeal. We each face between four months and one year in prison. My sentence was eight months.

Of course I would have preferred to win in the Supreme Court as personal vindication and to vacate my sentence. But beyond that, the Court has squandered a golden opportunity to define how to interpret the European Union directives for digital information. That decision not to decide has prompted many legal experts in Sweden to question the motives of denying the appeal. But the questionable decisions started long before that.

The Swedish prosecutor sent out a memo in 2006 saying that TPB wasn't guilty of "main" crimes -- at best it aids and abets (he also mentioned that the people running TPB were very clever). But Hollywood was not happy with this and forced the Swedish Minister of Justice to visit the White House and talk about it. The United States told Sweden that if they didn't get rid of the site, they would not be allowed to trade with the US!

The minister (illegally) told the prosecutor what had happened which forced him to raid TPB -- only a few weeks after sending out that memo about how legal it was.

Evidently, Warner Brothers felt that the investigation was taking too long. The studio contacted the police officer in charge of the investigation (one person that worked mostly by himself) and before I had even been questioned by him, he interviewed for a job with Warner Brothers.

When we found out he'd been hired (by him changing his employer from "Polisen" to "Warner Bros" on Facebook) the reply we got was that it was proof that Swedish IT police are of such high caliber that even the big US companies would hire them.

I got promoted from "witness" to "suspect" a week after the job was promised.

WATCH NOW: Peter Sunde's talk at the Wired conference

During the trial it turned out that the judge was the chairman for the Swedish pro-copyright society, one lay judge ran a record company, another one was formerly the chairman for the songwriter lobby organisation. I could go on.

The problem here is that we're allowing this dying industry to dictate the terms of our democracy. We allow them to dictate new laws (ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, IPRED, IPRED2, TPP, TRIPS, to name a few recent ones) that forbid evolution. If you don't give up before you're sued, they corrupt the legal system.

As I wrote immediately after the Supreme Court's refusal to hear our appeal: "Today I urge everyone to make sure that the entertainment industry does not profit from them anymore. Stop seeing their movies. Stop listening to their music. Make sure that you find alternative ways to culture.

"Spread and participate in culture. Remix, reuse, use, abuse. Make sure no one controls your mind. Create new systems and technology that circumvent the corruption. Start a religion. Start your own nation, or buy one. Buy a bus. Crush it to pieces."

The internet is being controlled by a corrupt industry. We need to stop it.

Update: Due to an editing error, Carl Lundström was identified as a co-founder of The Pirate Bay. Though Lundström was convicted, he and the three co-founders say he wasn't involved in the site.

Source: Wired.com

[Blake]

Rofl claiming copyright infringement is simple evolution

[Winehole23]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/jotform-domain-seizure/

[Spurminator]

Rofl claiming copyright infringement is simple evolution

Piracy is a byproduct of the industry's refusal to evolve. I think you missed the point of the article, though.

[mouse]

Rofl claiming copyright infringement is simple evolution


What part of modern evolution do you not get?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XxGW8E-RB1s/S8XhJIgmXPI/AAAAAAAACt0/SjkqxwEdLyo/s1600/mail-de-15778410.jpg
http://www.integralwebsolutions.co.za/Portals/0/Blog/Files/1/706/WLW-Gmailvs.Yahoomailvs.Hotmail_8FD0-gmailHotmailYahoomail_thumb.jpg

[mouse]

http://www.mosbybuildingarts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/door-to-door-salesman.jpg


http://images.pcworld.com/reviews/graphics/124187-2402p066-1b.jpg

[mouse]

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0013/3632/files/buying-records-store_medium.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/8/1231435335531/Downloading-music-iPod-Mi-001.jpg

[Blake]

Piracy is a byproduct of the industry's refusal to evolve. I think you missed the point of the article, though.

Rofl.

Feel free to share what you feel the point of the article is.

[Winehole23]

http://news.yahoo.com/eu-suspends-copyright-treaty-ratification-125425030.html

[Spurminator]

Rofl.

Feel free to share what you feel the point of the article is.

Do you need pictures?


If you don't give up before you're sued, they corrupt the legal system.

[Blake]

Do you need pictures?

Thanks for confirming I got the point the first time.

Rofl claiming that copyright infringement is just natural evolution

Rofl pirates

[Spurminator]

Brilliant observation as usual! rofl!

[LnGrrrR]

All items seem to have a natural price point, what the consumer is willing to accept. If prices go higher than this point, than the industry has to accept that some amount of their product will be obtained by illegal means. Obviously, the consumer has devalued music now that there are more and more ways to hear it. (And not just illegally... I can go to youtube and look up nearly any song I want to hear, there's Pandora, etc etc.)

What Spurm is getting at is that instead of realizing a healthy price point, the industry obstinately decided to keep their prices at the same level they were at when it wasn't as easy to pirate.

And instead of lowering their prices, they decided to load both barrels and try to go after the people downloading music through lawsuits. I don't think that was the right strategic decision to make, personally. It only emboldened others to not give the music industries any profit.

When you take that along with a few small-sample size examples like Radiohead and Tool offering their albums for free (or whatever you wanted to pay), and still making a decent amount, it tells me that the music industry was short-sighted.

[LnGrrrR]

Blake, if every grocery store in your local area started charging, say, 20 bucks for a loaf of bread, would you agree or disagree that those stores would likely see an uptick in theft of bread?

[Blake]

Brilliant observation as usual! rofl!

Your sympathy towards piracy and pirates is rofl as usual.

[Blake]

Blake, if every grocery store in your local area started charging, say, 20 bucks for a loaf of bread, would you agree or disagree that those stores would likely see an uptick in theft of bread?

Might see an increase in tortilla sales.

Hard to say, but I won't argue that there wouldn't be an uptick in theft.

Should there be no law against stealing bread if the price hits $20 a loaf?

[LnGrrrR]

Might see an increase in tortilla sales.

Hard to say, but I won't argue that there wouldn't be an uptick in theft.

Should there be no law against stealing bread if the price hits $20 a loaf?

I'm speaking more from a real-world perspective. The people who price bread understand that the higher it goes, the more likely theft will occur. Moreso if the perceived value of bread would drop.

(And on a tangent, I find it funny that we certainly wouldn't call it theft if I had a device that could clone bread, and walked into a grocery store and made a physical copy of that bread, then walked out without paying for the original bread I copied.)

[Blake]

I'm speaking more from a real-world perspective. The people who price bread understand that the higher it goes, the more likely theft will occur. Moreso if the perceived value of bread would drop.

Where in the real world should thieves be able to dictate market value?

Should there be a law against stealing $20 bread?


(And on a tangent, I find it funny that we certainly wouldn't call it theft if I had a device that could clone bread, and walked into a grocery store and made a physical copy of that bread, then walked out without paying for the original bread I copied.)

The Wal Mart greeter might ask you where the bread came from, but technically it wouldn't be theft because afaik, there's no copyright on bread.

If you walked into a music store, made a copy of a song, then walked out without paying for it, I'd call that theft.

[LnGrrrR]

Where in the real world should thieves be able to dictate market value?

Should there be a law against stealing $20 bread?

There should be a law against stealing bread, whichever the price. That said, of course thieves play a role in dictating market value. The more valuable an item is, the more likely it is to be stolen. The market then responds, usually by putting up more security.

However, the big problem with music/movies is that the music industry can't put enough "security" on their product to compete with thousands of piraters. They keep trying to implement security (RIAA, rootkits), but it's just pissing customers off. And then, instead of reversing course, they just push forward trying to sue customers. It's not very good optics for the community.

The Wal Mart greeter might ask you where the bread came from, but technically it wouldn't be theft because afaik, there's no copyright on bread.


If you walked into a music store, made a copy of a song, then walked out without paying for it, I'd call that theft.

Hence why I thought it was funny. Music and movies are not "essential" items, but would be much more protected by current laws than cloning of necessary items.

[Spurminator]

The Wal Mart greeter might ask you where the bread came from, but technically it wouldn't be theft because afaik, there's no copyright on bread.

The bread maker could argue that they have a proprietary "recipe" or way of making their bread that you are stealing. They've lost $4 because you obviously would have purchased their bread if you did not have the capability to make an exact replica of it.

[Blake]

There should be a law against stealing bread, whichever the price.

Agreed. Further, if a person is caught stealing bread, should or shouldn't they be prosecuted on criminal charges?


That said, of course thieves play a role in dictating market value. The more valuable an item is, the more likely it is to be stolen. The market then responds, usually by putting up more security.

Interesting. Where else in the real world exactly does theft directly affect market value and it's simply considered to be normal business?


However, the big problem with music/movies is that the music industry can't put enough "security" on their product to compete with thousands of piraters. They keep trying to implement security (RIAA, rootkits), but it's just pissing customers off. And then, instead of reversing course, they just push forward trying to sue customers. It's not very good optics for the community.

Irrelevant problem, imo.



Hence why I thought it was funny. Music and movies are not "essential" items, but would be much more protected by current laws than cloning of necessary items.

I don't know what you are referring to, tbh.

Since the cost of bread is low, the punishment here would be a light misdemeanor, but grand theft is still a felony.

[Blake]

The bread maker could argue that they have a proprietary "recipe" or way of making their bread that you are stealing. They've lost $4 because you obviously would have purchased their bread if you did not have the capability to make an exact replica of it.

You can only get a patent on a food item if it's new, useful and the composition non-obvious. A bread maker generally cannot get a patent for a loaf of white sandwich bread.

If they did somehow get a patent and you copy and take it, then yes, theft.

[ElNono]

There are laws making copyright infringement both a civil and criminal offense. Lack of laws isn't the problem. If anything, the problem is the lack of resources to enforce such laws which makes them somewhat ineffective.

Going with the bread analogy, should supermarket owners have the ability sequester cars without court oversight because the car might contain a loaf of stolen bread?

And that's why some of these proposed laws are simply inadequate.

There's certainly a problem that needs to be addressed. This just isn't the way to do it.

[DarkReign]

Always been a big proponent of no copyright laws whatsoever. If there had to be, it should be extremely short and limited.

I understand America was founded on "having an idea and making money on it" but that was because the country was founded in juxtaposition to the Crown owning everything.

Whats so wrong with no one owning anything? If you really wanted to be the antithesis of the prior system, that would be it.

Moreover, with no copyright protection, there is no impetus to share it. Example: I invent a new engine unlike any before. My window of opportunity is limited to hit the market should I want to start making them myself, but you know what? Someone who makes engines will buy it even without a guarantee of owning the design for 20+ years. The price of that purchase could be tied to units sold, etc. Or it could be one giant lump sum.

Point is, I havent lost and the will to invent hasnt been hindered. People bemoan capitalism because the current form we practice is anything but a "free market".

I have only used 4 illegally obtained programs in my lifetime of computer use and they are so incredibly outdated that talking about them is moot. I believe in buying what you want to see more from, support the music you like, for example.

I dont do it because its illegal or because the court system in this favors big business copyrighting every single micro element of existence, from food, to biology to drugs. Did you know you can copyright DNA strains? Thats "patently" ridiculous (yuck yuck).

But thats the world we live in. If your adherence to law is such that these things do not bother you and that copyrighting is the only way, fine. You have the government, law and international community on your side because thats the way its been for centuries.

But it will never, ever stop the world from obtaining what they want by other means. The government and its proponents can fight the good fight now, but know this...in the end, you will lose this war. May not be in your lifetime, but your position will end being mocked by future generations as "archaic thinking". You know what? It is archaic thinking already, just too damn many people cant wrap their mind around new concepts that betray old truths about ownership and entitlement.

[DarkReign]

stupid double post

[Blake]

Moreover, with no copyright protection, there is no impetus to share it. Example: I invent a new engine unlike any before. My window of opportunity is limited to hit the market should I want to start making them myself, but you know what? Someone who makes engines will buy it even without a guarantee of owning the design for 20+ years. The price of that purchase could be tied to units sold, etc. Or it could be one giant lump sum.


If you don't own the idea for the new engine, how do you figure you will sell your idea to the engine manufacturer after you present said idea to them?

[DarkReign]

If you don't own the idea for the new engine, how do you figure you will sell your idea to the engine manufacturer after you present said idea to them?

Semantics. Complete semantics. Our company routinely sells designs with two things. A layout and a proof of concept.

They never see the design until it is bought and we have only ever patented one item. However, the companies purchasing the designs patent and copyright them routinely, as far as I know.

[Blake]

Semantics. Complete semantics. Our company routinely sells designs with two things. A layout and a proof of concept.

They never see the design until it is bought and we have only ever patented one item. However, the companies purchasing the designs patent and copyright them routinely, as far as I know.

K.

I do wonder how much society as a whole is being held back because of patents.

In the end though, I still think the individual inventor should have the courtesy (arguably the right) to hold on to his/her idea for a limited amount of time.....even at the cost of potentially moving society forward.

[velik_m]

YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music
Posted by timothy on Sunday February 26, @04:43PM
from the estate-of-john-cage-winces-with-envy dept.
New submitter eeplox writes “I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish’s copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me. I disputed their claim with YouTube’s system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: ‘All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.’ So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish’s exclusive intellectual property.”

(h/t Peter Surda)

http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copyrighted-music/

[velik_m]

Right versus pragmatic
...
This pattern is common. We often try to fight problems by yelling at them instead of accepting the reality of what people do, from controversial national legislation to passive-aggressive office signs. Such efforts usually fail, often with a lot of collateral damage, much like Prohibition and the ongoing “war” on “drugs”.

And, more recently (and with much less human damage), media piracy.
...

http://www.marco.org/2012/02/25/right-vs-pragmatic

[Blake]

http://www.marco.org/2012/02/25/right-vs-pragmatic

That bathroom analogy was horrible, imo.

[LnGrrrR]

Agreed. Further, if a person is caught stealing bread, should or shouldn't they be prosecuted on criminal charges?

I guess that depends on what other crimes are being committed. Resources are limited, after all. Assuming infinite resources, sure.


Interesting. Where else in the real world exactly does theft directly affect market value and it's simply considered to be normal business?

Not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The price of a good is not just dictated by have/wants... other things are built into the price.

For instance, most stores have locks, right? Owners must pay money for the locks, and whatever additional security they install. The store owner passes on these costs to the consumer, usually by raising the price of one or more goods.

In areas with greater theft/crime, there's a likelihood that the price of goods could rise to provide for greater security.


Irrelevant problem, imo.

What's irrelevant? The fact that the music/movie industry look like a bunch of asshats going after 40 year old mothers because their child downloaded 40 songs?

Or do you think it's irrelevant that it's ridiculously easy to make digital copies, therefore making security prohibitively expensive and/or futile?


Since the cost of bread is low, the punishment here would be a light misdemeanor, but grand theft is still a felony.

What punishment would there be if the bread was cloned? Heck, I could clone a million loaves of bread and cart them out of the store.

[Blake]

I guess that depends on what other crimes are being committed. Resources are limited, after all. Assuming infinite resources, sure.

Why would it depend on other crimes?

The resources would come into play when discussing the actual enforcement of the law.

Not sure what it is exactly you are having an issue with.....the laws themselves or the enforcement of them.


Not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The price of a good is not just dictated by have/wants... other things are built into the price.

For instance, most stores have locks, right? Owners must pay money for the locks, and whatever additional security they install. The store owner passes on these costs to the consumer, usually by raising the price of one or more goods.

In areas with greater theft/crime, there's a likelihood that the price of goods could rise to provide for greater security.

Why are you putting this much responsibility on store owners?

To be clear: If a thief was caught stealing a loaf of bread, and the owner wanted to press criminal charges against the thief, should he be able to? yes or no?



What's irrelevant? The fact that the music/movie industry look like a bunch of asshats going after 40 year old mothers because their child downloaded 40 songs?

Or do you think it's irrelevant that it's ridiculously easy to make digital copies, therefore making security prohibitively expensive and/or futile?

Both are irrelevant.

Your perception of the industry being a bunch of asshats is irrelevant to the need of copyright laws.

Private security issues are also irrelevant to the need of such laws.


What punishment would there be if the bread was cloned? Heck, I could clone a million loaves of bread and cart them out of the store.

Again, unless there is a patent on the bread, you aren't stealing anything. Anyone can make a loaf of bread.

You cloning a million copies of a movie such as Avatar that you can't make on your own is entirely different.

[velik_m]

Oldie, but goldie: http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/


Courtney Love does the math

...
There were a billion music downloads last year, but music sales are up. Where’s the evidence that downloads hurt business? Downloads are creating more demand.

Why aren’t record companies embracing this great opportunity? Why aren’t they trying to talk to the kids passing compilations around to learn what they like? Why is the RIAA suing the companies that are stimulating this new demand? What’s the point of going after people swapping cruddy-sounding MP3s? Cash! Cash they have no intention of passing onto us, the writers of their profits.
...

How can anyone defend the current system when it fails to deliver music to so many potential fans? That only expects of itself a “5 percent success rate” a year? The status quo gives us a boring culture. In a society of over 300 million people, only 30 new artists a year sell a million records. By any measure, that’s a huge failure.

Maybe each fan will spend less money, but maybe each artist will have a better chance of making a living. Maybe our culture will get more interesting than the one currently owned by Time Warner.
...

[Blake]

Oldie, but goldie: http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/


....Where’s the evidence that downloads hurt business? Downloads are creating more demand. Why aren’t record companies embracing this great opportunity



Those idiot record companies obviously haven't done the math!

[velik_m]

Those idiot record companies obviously haven't done the math!

You haven't read it, have you?

[Blake]

You haven't read it, have you?

I read what you posted.

The writer's answer to his own question appeared to be "cash".....which doesn't really make sense, imo.

Why do you think record companies don't just give away downloads?

[velik_m]

I read what you posted.

The writer's answer to his own question appeared to be "cash".....which doesn't really make sense, imo.

Why do you think record companies don't just give away downloads?

The "writer" is/was Courtney Love, you know - an artist. Are we concerned about artists and art they create or record companies and so called entertainment industry (lawyers and marketing)?

[Blake]

The "writer" is/was Courtney Love, you know - an artist.

why should I trust Courtney Love's math if she's, you know - an artist?


Are we concerned about artists and art they create or record companies and so called entertainment industry (lawyers and marketing)?

If you are that concerned about the artists, nothing is stopping you from sending them money directly.

You haven't answered my question.

Why do you think record companies don't just give away downloads?

[velik_m]

You haven't answered my question.

Why do you think record companies don't just give away downloads?

Control & money.

[Bill_Brasky]

Artists/record labels could solve all of this by simply allowing convenient downloads/streams of their music via something like spotify for a small fee. It would be easier than torrenting, the selection/quality would be better, and people wouldn't risk getting their computers a virus.

Instead, apparently it's easier to try and write a bunch of really harsh laws that nobody seems to agree with because really these artists are greedy and only doing it for the money, rather than being mucisians who just enjoy playing music.

[Blake]

Control & money.

So when Love says "[illegal] downloads are creating more demand", she really doesn't know what she's talking about.

[ElNono]

So when Love says "[illegal] downloads are creating more demand", she really doesn't know what she's talking about.

Actual music sales figures have been going up, despite "massive piracy". Maybe she's onto something.

[velik_m]

So when Love says "[illegal] downloads are creating more demand", she really doesn't know what she's talking about.

But demand did go up in the last decade since this was written...

[Blake]

Actual music sales figures have been going up, despite "massive piracy". Maybe she's onto something.


But demand did go up in the last decade since this was written...

Does Love have actual proof of this correlation/causation?

Since the music industry is not giving away free music and is griping about pirates, it's doubtful she's really on to anything.

[Wild Cobra]

Actual music sales figures have been going up, despite "massive piracy". Maybe she's onto something.
Has it? Did you say you are from Utopia?

I have looked at several charts, all showing a decline of these later years. Each graph below has the site linked to it that they came from.

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ed4b54bd7c8e612260000/chart-of-the-day-recorded-music-revenue-per-capita-feb-2011.jpg (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-18/tech/30065200_1_music-sales-music-industry-collapse)

http://www.audiouk.com/Global-Sales.jpg (http://www.audiouk.com/compactdisc.htm)

http://meetthadealer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/musicsales.gif (http://meetthadealer.com/2011/01/20/news-global-2010-recorded-music-sales-fell-about-9-percent%E2%80%8F/)

http://www.hypebot.com/.a/6a00d83451b36c69e2012876b35426970c-450wi (http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2010/01/growth-in-digital-music-sales-slows.html)

http://news.jazzjournalists.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/chart-of-the-day-music-industry-1973-2009-feb-2011.jpg (http://news.jazzjournalists.org/2011/02/graph-shows-music-sales-decline/)

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/07/08/1996_610x648.jpg (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20077981-261/whats-driving-rise-in-music-sales/)

[Spurminator]

Since the music industry is not giving away free music and is griping about pirates, it's doubtful she's really on to anything.

:lmao

[ElNono]

Does Love have actual proof of this correlation/causation?

You should ask her... Maybe she knows a thing or two about the business that you don't...


Has it? Did you say you are from Utopia?

You're looking at old data :rolleyes

Cue the Music: Driven by Digital, Music Sales up in 2011 (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/cue-the-music-driven-by-digital-music-sales-up-in-2011/)

Say What? Thanks To Digital Music, Album Sales Up For The First Time Since 2004 (http://m.techcrunch.com/2011/07/06/say-what-thanks-to-digital-music-album-sales-up-for-the-first-time-since-2004/)

[Wild Cobra]

You should ask her... Maybe she knows a thing or two about the business that you don't...



You're looking at old data :rolleyes

Cue the Music: Driven by Digital, Music Sales up in 2011 (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/cue-the-music-driven-by-digital-music-sales-up-in-2011/)

Say What? Thanks To Digital Music, Album Sales Up For The First Time Since 2004 (http://m.techcrunch.com/2011/07/06/say-what-thanks-to-digital-music-album-sales-up-for-the-first-time-since-2004/)
Your short term gain does not make up for the longer term losses, and are probably because of crackdowns on illegal file sharing.

[velik_m]

Your short term gain does not make up for the longer term losses, and are probably because of crackdowns on illegal file sharing.

Or maybe they are because they finally stopped fighting the inevitable and embraced the digital future...

Anyway, that's beside the point, the reason Courtney didn't mind if the songs are being given away for free is because she wasn't getting anything from sales anyhow, so to her it was just a free promotion (like radio).

The question we must ask our selfs is not "Does piracy hurt the recording industry?" but "Does piracy hurt the artist?". The RIAA would have you believe they are one and the same, but nothing could be further from the truth. And i think the answer is closer to the "no" then "yes" on that question. And regardless of the actual answer (though no makes it a no brainer): Do we stop progress to rescue a dying industry?

[Wild Cobra]

They have been doing digital sales for some time now. Where have you been?

[velik_m]

They have been doing digital sales for some time now. Where have you been?

In a country most digital stores refuse to sell to (i hear apple started selling music to us last autumn). But it's ok, we have cheap broadband and lots of seeders.

[ElNono]

Your short term gain does not make up for the longer term losses, and are probably because of crackdowns on illegal file sharing.

And why are they entitled to make up for anything? It's a business. Sometimes they lose money sometimes they don't. It's not like they've undergone massive changes in both delivery and consumption of their goods.

BTW, no big label has actually 'lost' money through this. If anything their revenue has simply decreased due to mostly people shifting to a different format and them being slow to deliver. Digital sales represent 50% of their sales these days.

As I pointed out, it's readily apparent they can improve music sales despite the rampant piracy. Maybe Love knew what she was talking about after all.

[Wild Cobra]

And why are they entitled to make up for anything? It's a business. Sometimes they lose money sometimes they don't. It's not like they've undergone massive changes in both delivery and consumption of their goods.

BTW, no big label has actually 'lost' money through this. If anything their revenue has simply decreased due to mostly people shifting to a different format and them being slow to deliver. Digital sales represent 50% of their sales these days.

As I pointed out, it's readily apparent they can improve music sales despite the rampant piracy. Maybe Love knew what she was talking about after all.
The business is being lost to piracy. I guess you agree with piracy.

[ElNono]

The business is being lost to piracy. I guess you agree with piracy.

Business is lost to a plethora of factors, which might include piracy, but isn't necessarily the sole factor. As seen, the industry can actually grow its revenues despite the piracy...

I'm for artists getting their dues and consumers getting good value. You'll find no sympathy from me for the middle-man.

[Blake]

You should ask her... Maybe she knows a thing or two about the business that you don't...

I have no vested interest in it other than curiosity.

Maybe record companies should ask her...maybe she knows a thing or two about the business that they don't.

Smh

[ElNono]

I have no vested interest in it other than curiosity.

Maybe record companies should ask her...maybe she knows a thing or two about the business that they don't.

Smh

Apparently record companies are starting to get a clue and seemingly are doing ok without her advice. And with piracy.

[Blake]

Business is lost to a plethora of factors, which might include piracy, but isn't necessarily the sole factor. As seen, the industry can actually grow its revenues despite the piracy...

I'm for artists getting their dues and consumers getting good value. You'll find no sympathy from me for the middle-man.

I have sympathy for victims of piracy. I think it's a shame more people don't.

[Blake]

Apparently record companies are starting to get a clue and seemingly are doing ok without her advice. And with piracy.

yeah, I didn't really think Love was on to anything that the record companies didn't already look into.

[ElNono]

yeah, I didn't really think Love was on to anything that the record companies didn't already look into.

She apparently was spot on well before companies caught up to it...

Maybe it was just luck.

[mouse]

One day you will pay for the music stored in your mind.

[mouse]

What punishment would there be if the bread was cloned? Heck, I could clone a million loaves of bread and cart them out of the store.


/thread

[Blake]

She apparently was spot on well before companies caught up to it...

Maybe it was just luck.

She was complaining more about the companies abusing and underpaying the artists.....but even so:


...This is my “funny” math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I’m positive it’s better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide......

rofl funny math

Just curious, what company out there has caught up to and embraced the idea that illegal downloading actually creates more music sales?

Is there some actual documentation that supports this?

[Blake]

One day you will pay for the music stored in your mind.

doubtful

[Spurminator]

The question we must ask our selfs is not "Does piracy hurt the recording industry?" but "Does piracy hurt the artist?".

And a sub-question should be "Does it hurt the art?"

If piracy hurts the industry dinosaurs and the middlemen who still think payola, focus groups, and force-feeding stores, radio stations and concert festivals the work of artists on their payroll, good. Their way of business cannot disappear fast enough. Music has been exponentially better since technology advanced to the point where artists can record, release and distribute their work ont heir own. And those artists don't care if someone hears their music for free before they buy it.

[ElNono]

She was complaining more about the companies abusing and underpaying the artists.....but even so:

rofl funny math

Just curious, what company out there has caught up to and embraced the idea that illegal downloading actually creates more music sales?

Is there some actual documentation that supports this?

Well, we know music sales increased. Since you're curious you should be able to do the research on illegal downloading having a promotional effect. BTW, there are papers on the subject if you actually care to look.

Ultimately, I don't expect record companies endorsing anything but their own claims. Much like Amazon is removing middle-man in the book publishing industry, I expect record companies to go the same route. I think it's great for the consumer. JMO

[jack sommerset]

You shall not steal and stealing is stealing. Pretty cut and dry. God bless.

[Blake]

And those artists don't care if someone hears their music for free before they buy it.

some do, some don't.

The ones that do care should be able to have their rights protected, imo.

[ElNono]

lol man made 'god'

Thou shall not kill sounds pretty cut and dry too... And killing is killing.

[Blake]

Well, we know music sales increased. Since you're curious you should be able to do the research on illegal downloading having a promotional effect. BTW, there are papers on the subject if you actually care to look.

Ultimately, I don't expect record companies endorsing anything but their own claims. Much like Amazon is removing middle-man in the book publishing industry, I expect record companies to go the same route. I think it's great for the consumer. JMO

You said companies have caught up with her idea. I was just asking for the name of one of these companies.

I'm still thinking record companies still generally don't like illegal downloading.

[ElNono]

You said companies have caught up with her idea. I was just asking for the name of one of these companies.

I'm still thinking record companies still generally don't like illegal downloading.

They don't have to like the idea, endorse it or participate on it.

Not all promotion is intentional or endorsed.

[ElNono]

Oh, the company names of big labels are well known. Since you're curious, you should be able to find them...

[Blake]

Oh, the company names of big labels are well known. Since you're curious, you should be able to find them...


Rather shitty on your part to make a claim and not provide just one example on request.

I think you would rather play silly games than give an example.

:td

[Blake]

Well, we know music sales increased. Since you're curious you should be able to do the research on illegal downloading having a promotional effect. BTW, there are papers on the subject if you actually care to look.

Ultimately, I don't expect record companies endorsing anything but their own claims. Much like Amazon is removing middle-man in the book publishing industry, I expect record companies to go the same route. I think it's great for the consumer. JMO


....Studies show that the appeal of piracy has waned in France since the so-called three-strikes law, hailed by the music and movie industries and hated by advocates of an open Internet, went into effect. Digital sales, which were slow to get started in France, are growing. Music industry revenues are starting to stabilize......

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/technology/20iht-piracy20.html?pagewanted=all

[Blake]

After years of decline, sales of recorded music are up for the first half of 2011, according to Nielsen SoundScan and Billboard's midyear music industry report....

....Several factors account for the turnaround, Donio says. He points to October's court-ordered shutdown of peer-to-peer file-sharing website LimeWire; more ways for consumers to buy music digitally and to become aware of new releases via social media

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2011-07-06-music-sales-jump-this-year_n.htm

[Blake]

Shocking study:


To Students, Music Piracy and Shoplifting Are Worlds Apart


ScienceDaily (Apr. 13, 2011) — What's the difference between stealing a CD from a music store and ripping off music online? The music industry and law enforcers say that there is none: Theft is theft, whether it's physical or digital.......

....In the study by University of Nebraska-Lincoln researchers, nearly 200 undergraduates were asked to react to a hypothetical fellow student either shoplifting a CD or illegally downloading one.

......"We examined theoretical explanations for law-abiding behavior that have been traditionally used to account for compliance, and found weaker support for these explanations when it comes to digital piracy," said Twila Wingrove, the study's lead author. "The results suggest that students perceive shoplifting and digital piracy differently, despite the fact that they are both forms of theft."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110413093211.htm

[ElNono]

You're welcome.

[mouse]

doubtful


IBM said the same thing

http://www.techmynd.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bill-gates-windows.jpg

[Blake]

You're welcome.

Rofl.

I have found no research confirming anything one way or the other regarding piracy's effects on profits. Anyone that has attempted such research confirms there are way too many variables to conclude anything.

I don't think Love was really on to something that the record companies hadn't already looked into. I do think that you are full of shit. :tu

[velik_m]

Here's another oldie:

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs.

But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors.

It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance.

By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it.

Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.

It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea.

In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.



http://odur.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl220.htm

[Blake]

It is also pretended by some that man has a natural and exclusive right to own property........especially if he is the first one to stick a flag in it and/or proclaim it as his.

[velik_m]

It is also pretended by some that man has a natural and exclusive right to own property........especially if he is the first one to stick a flag in it and/or proclaim it as his.

On that subject:


Defining Property

March 2012

As a child I read a book of stories about a famous judge in eighteenth century Japan called Ooka Tadasuke. One of the cases he decided was brought by the owner of a food shop. A poor student who could afford only rice was eating his rice while enjoying the delicious cooking smells coming from the food shop. The owner wanted the student to pay for the smells he was enjoying. The student was stealing his smells!

This story often comes to mind when I hear the RIAA and MPAA accusing people of stealing music and movies.

It sounds ridiculous to us to treat smells as property. But I can imagine scenarios in which one could charge for smells. Imagine we were living on a moon base where we had to buy air by the liter. I could imagine air suppliers adding scents at an extra charge.

The reason it seems ridiculous to us to treat smells as property is that it wouldn't work to. It would work on a moon base, though.

What counts as property depends on what works to treat as property. And that not only can change, but has changed. Humans may always (for some definition of human and always) have treated small items carried on one's person as property. But hunter gatherers didn't treat land, for example, as property in the way we do.[1]

The reason so many people think of property as having a single unchanging definition is that its definition changes very slowly. [2] But we are in the midst of such a change now. The record labels and movie studios used to distribute what they made like air shipped through tubes on a moon base. But with the arrival of networks, it's as if we've moved to a planet with a breathable atmosphere. Data moves like smells now. And through a combination of wishful thinking and short-term greed, the labels and studios have put themselves in the position of the food shop owner, accusing us all of stealing their smells.

(The reason I say short-term greed is that the underlying problem with the labels and studios is that the people who run them are driven by bonuses rather than equity. If they were driven by equity they'd be looking for ways to take advantage of technological change instead of fighting it. But building new things takes too long. Their bonuses depend on this year's revenues, and the best way to increase those is to extract more money from stuff they do already.)

So what does this mean? Should people not be able to charge for content? There's not a single yes or no answer to that question. People should be able to charge for content when it works to charge for content.

But by "works" I mean something more subtle than "when they can get away with it." I mean when people can charge for content without warping society in order to do it. After all, the companies selling smells on the moon base could continue to sell them on the Earth, if they lobbied successfully for laws requiring us all to continue to breathe through tubes down here too, even though we no longer needed to.

The crazy legal measures that the labels and studios have been taking have a lot of that flavor. Newspapers and magazines are just as screwed, but they are at least declining gracefully. The RIAA and MPAA would make us breathe through tubes if they could.

Ultimately it comes down to common sense. When you're abusing the legal system by trying to use mass lawsuits against randomly chosen people as a form of exemplary punishment, or lobbying for laws that would break the Internet if they passed, that's ipso facto evidence you're using a definition of property that doesn't work.

This is where it's helpful to have working democracies and multiple sovereign countries. If the world had a single, autocratic government, the labels and studios could buy laws making the definition of property be whatever they wanted. But fortunately there are still some countries that are not copyright colonies of the US, and even in the US, politicians still seem to be afraid of actual voters, in sufficient numbers. [3]

The people running the US may not like it when voters or other countries refuse to bend to their will, but ultimately it's in all our interest that there's not a single point of attack for people trying to warp the law to serve their own purposes. Private property is an extremely useful idea—arguably one of our greatest inventions. So far, each new definition of it has brought us increasing material wealth. [4] It seems reasonable to suppose the newest one will too. It would be a disaster if we all had to keep running an obsolete version just because a few powerful people were too lazy to upgrade.


Notes

[1] If you want to learn more about hunter gatherers I strongly recommend Elizabeth Marshall Thomas's The Harmless People and The Old Way.

[2] Change in the definition of property is driven mostly by technological progress, however, and since technological progress is accelerating, so presumably will the rate of change in the definition of property. Which means it's all the more important for societies to be able to respond gracefully to such changes, because they will come at an ever increasing rate.

[3] As far as I know, the term "copyright colony" was first used by Myles Peterson.

[4] The state of technology isn't simply a function of the definition of property. They each constrain the other. But that being so, you can't mess with the definition of property without affecting (and probably harming) the state of technology. The history of the USSR offers a vivid illustration of that.


http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html

[ElNono]

Rofl.

I have found no research confirming anything one way or the other regarding piracy's effects on profits. Anyone that has attempted such research confirms there are way too many variables to conclude anything.


Business is lost to a plethora of factors, which might include piracy, but isn't necessarily the sole factor.

Exactly what I said.


I don't think Love was really on to something that the record companies hadn't already looked into. I do think that you are full of shit. :tu

Whatever. I think she's spot on that:

A) people want their music whenever they want in the format they want (largely non-drm digital these days) and the music industry has been slow to get there.

B) the industry does use funny math when quantifying alleged losses. This is something we already discussed in this thread and that we obviously have different opinions on.

[Wild Cobra]

Exactly what I said.



Whatever. I think she's spot on that:

A) people want their music whenever they want in the format they want (largely non-drm digital these days) and the music industry has been slow to get there.

B) the industry does use funny math when quantifying alleged losses. This is something we already discussed in this thread and that we obviously have different opinions on.
Just the same, if a provider only offers a product in one form, does that give people the right to steal it since it isn't in the form they want? Or at a cost they think is reasonable?

[ElNono]

Just the same, if a provider only offers a product in one form, does that give people the right to steal it since it isn't in the form they want? Or at a cost they think is reasonable?

Where did I say they have a "right" to pirate it? Quote?

[Wild Cobra]

Where did I say they have a "right" to pirate it? Quote?
I wasn't saying you did. If someone wants a digital transportable form, they can buy the CD and go from there. As long as they have a legal copy, nothing wrong with them moving the data for personal use.

[ElNono]

I wasn't saying you did. If someone wants a digital transportable form, they can buy the CD and go from there. As long as they have a legal copy, nothing wrong with them moving the data for personal use.

That's provided the CD doesn't have DRM (some of which did between 2005-2007). Circumventing DRM controls is penalized under the DMCA. Every DVD or BluRay falls in that category.

And ultimately the user might not want the entire CD, and might not buy it. That's a lost sale due strictly to the format.

[Blake]

On that subject:



http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html

lol comparing stealing music to incidental smells.

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

And ultimately the user might not want the entire CD, and might not buy it. That's a lost sale due strictly to the format.
Agreed.

There are still ways of making copies of the tracks, and the protection was because people were bootlegging them. It's an endless battle.

Not wanting all the tracks is similar to why I never bough premium cable packages. I didn't want most the content. It wasn't a cost practical thing for me. I even dropped my cable TV completely and use an antenna.

It's a choice. Their sales choice, and the consumers purchasing choice. Eventually, a good business listens to the consumer.

[Blake]

Whatever. I think she's spot on that:

A) people want their music whenever they want in the format they want (largely non-drm digital these days) and the music industry has been slow to get there.

B) the industry does use funny math when quantifying alleged losses. This is something we already discussed in this thread and that we obviously have different opinions on.

Are these really things she knew that the record companies didn't?

Again, doubtful.

[ElNono]

Agreed.

There are still ways of making copies of the tracks, and the protection was because people were bootlegging them. It's an endless battle.

Not wanting all the tracks is similar to why I never bough premium cable packages. I didn't want most the content. It wasn't a cost practical thing for me. I even dropped my cable TV completely and use an antenna.

It's a choice. Their sales choice, and the consumers purchasing choice. Eventually, a good business listens to the consumer.

Bingo. That's what the whole adapting argument really rests.

[velik_m]

lol comparing stealing music to incidental smells.

:lol

You haven't read it, have you?

[Blake]

You haven't read it, have you?

Yes I did. The comparison made me laugh.

[jag]

I agree with some of what Blake has said (at least the pages I read).

At the risk of oversimplifying things, filesharing always comes down to a very basic question for me: How would I feel if my creative material were passed around for free without my consent?

If companies are willing to adapt to new kinds of technology to make their products readily available through primary desired mediums, then I find it hard to agree with anyone advocating the sharing of copyrighted material.

[mouse]

Wild Cobra the pic in your Sig is not legit.

You can tell by the mans shirt and where it lines up with his waistline those pictures were taken the same day.

Also they show only the tops of the same tree in they're first two pics and then show more of the same tree in the following pics. look at the backgrounds.

http://cosy.com/Science/CO2-pineGrowth100120half.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra the pic in your Sig is not legit.

You can tell by the mans shirt and where it lines up with his waistline those pictures were taken the same day.

Also they show only the tops of the same tree in they're first two pics and then show more of the same tree in the following pics. look at the backgrounds.

http://cosy.com/Science/CO2-pineGrowth100120half.jpg

WTF...

This guy grew four trees in three partitions of a greenhouse and one outside it. He is showing the effects of increased CO2 levels on plant life. This is well known among those who profit from greenhouse grown goods. There is nothing fake about it.

Yes, they were pictures taken the same day, but grown with four different CO2 levels.

Check this out:

Johnson CO2 Generator (http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp)

[mouse]

I wish Blake and all his tree hugging supporter's

Good Luck!



http://www.vintageperiods.com/_files/Image/5%20Prohibition%20Disposal%289%29.jpg

[mouse]

WTF...

This guy grew four trees in three partitions of a greenhouse and one outside it. He is showing the effects of increased CO2 levels on plant life. This is well known among those who profit from greenhouse grown goods. There is nothing fake about it.

Yes, they were pictures taken the same day, but grown with four different CO2 levels.

Check this out:

Johnson CO2 Generator (http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp)

Please don't make me install photo shop just to prove you wrong.......again!

[Blake]

mouse being an odd jpegging fool....

Not the first time, no doubt not the last

[mouse]

mouse being an odd jpegging fool....

Not the first time, no doubt not the last


If you look closely you can see it's the same tree that has been cut down in stages then reverse the order of the photos to look like time laps.

[mouse]

Anyway back to the topic does anyone here have an update on how the war on file sharing is being won?


Same people who drink and smoke pot have not been effected by the billions of wasted dollars over the years,
I see the same for this lame ass file sharing law.

But if it makes the Blake's of this country happy, spend away....

[velik_m]

RIAA chief: ISPs to start policing copyright by July 12

Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon are among the ISPs preparing to implement a graduated response to piracy by July, says the music industry's chief lobbyist.

NEW YORK--The country's largest Internet service providers haven't given up on the idea of becoming copyright cops.

Last July, Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and other bandwidth providers announced that they had agreed to adopt policies designed to discourage customers from illegally downloading music, movies and software. Since then, the ISPs have been very quiet about their antipiracy measures.

But during a panel discussion before a gathering of U.S. publishers here today, Cary Sherman, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, said most of the participating ISPs are on track to begin implementing the program by July 12.

Supporters say this could become the most effective antipiracy program ever. Since ISPs are the Internet's gatekeepers, the theory is that network providers are in the best position to fight illegal file sharing. CNET broke the news last June that the RIAA and counterparts at the trade group for the big film studios, had managed to get the deal through--with the help of the White House.

Sherman told attendees of the Association of American Publishers' annual meeting, that planners had always said that setting up an antipiracy program like this could take a year. He told CNET following his panel that the process isn't as easy as turning on a switch.

"Each ISP has to develop their infrastructure for automating the system," Sherman said. They need this "for establishing the database so they can keep track of repeat infringers, so they know that this is the first notice or the third notice. Every ISP has to do it differently depending on the architecture of its particular network. Some are nearing completion and others are a little further from completion."

The program, commonly referred to as "graduated response," requires that ISPs send out one or two educational notices to those customers who are accused of downloading copyrighted content illegally. If the customer doesn't stop, the ISP is then asked to send out "confirmation notices" asking that they confirm they have received notice.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57397452-261/riaa-chief-isps-to-start-policing-copyright-by-july-12/

[Blake]

If you look closely you can see it's the same tree that has been cut down in stages then reverse the order of the photos to look like time laps.

I'm not referring to Wild Cobra's picture. I'm referring to your stupid ones.

[mouse]

I'm not referring to Wild Cobra's picture. I'm referring to your stupid ones.


Don't confuse "referring' to "Debunking"

[Blake]

Don't confuse "referring' to "Debunking"

Didn't.

[Winehole23]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/29/france_authors_rights_compulsory_acquisition/

[ElNono]

What the 1930s fashion industry tells us about Big Content's "six strikes" plan (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/what-the-1930s-fashion-industry-means-for-big-contents-six-strikes-plan.ars)

[velik_m]

TPB LOSS

We were down a few hours earlier today. There's no need to worry, we haven't been raided this time. We're only upgrading stuff since we're still growing.

One of the technical things we always optimize is where to put our front machines. They are the ones that re-direct your traffic to a secret location. We have now decided to try to build something extraordinary.

With the development of GPS controlled drones, far-reaching cheap radio equipment and tiny new computers like the Raspberry Pi, we're going to experiment with sending out some small drones that will float some kilometers up in the air. This way our machines will have to be shut down with aeroplanes in order to shut down the system. A real act of war.

We're just starting so we haven't figured everything out yet. But we can't limit ourselves to hosting things just on land anymore. These Low Orbit Server Stations (LOSS) are just the first attempt. With modern radio transmitters we can get over 100Mbps per node up to 50km away. For the proxy system we're building, that's more than enough.

But when time comes we will host in all parts of the galaxy, being true to our slogan of being the galaxy's most resilient system. And all of the parts we'll use to build that system on will be downloadable.

http://thepiratebay.se/blog/210

[velik_m]

double post

[Blake]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/29/france_authors_rights_compulsory_acquisition/

Interesting.

This link expounds on it a little further I think:

http://blog.authorsrights.org.uk/2012/02/28/france-guillotines-copyright/

I wonder where they came up with 2001 for the cut off. If it was simply due to it being the turn of the century, then that's a stupid reason.
I think idea would be better suited if they were to move it back another 40-50 years.

I also wonder how they will determine compensation to the authors/publishers.

[Blake]

http://thepiratebay.se/blog/210

lol real act of war

Does Pirate Bay not understand what airspace means

[velik_m]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/kings-goalie-jonathan-bernier-must-goodbye-hollywood-mask-215218004.html

[Blake]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/kings-goalie-jonathan-bernier-must-goodbye-hollywood-mask-215218004.html

The Hollywood chamber of commerce sounds like a group of ass holes, but if they've trademarked their image, then tough shit. Remove the image from the helmet.

[velik_m]

ISP: Storing 25 petabytes of Megaupload data costs us $9,000 a day

Until January, Megaupload was a major customer of Carpathia Hosting. Now Megaupload is facing a federal indictment, and its servers have become a major burden for Carpathia.

Carpathia is the proud owners of 1,103 servers with approximately 25 petabytes of Megaupload data on them. The government seized Megaupload's assets, so the firm can't pay its bills and Carpathia has cancelled Megaupload's service contract. But Carpathia hasn't been able to reuse the servers for other customers because doing so might interfere with the Megaupload court case or invite lawsuits from Megaupload customers who lose data as a result.

On Tuesday, the hosting firm filed a request with a Virginia federal court asking for relief from the financial burden of continuing to maintain the servers. The company estimates it pays $9,000 per day for rack space, power, and connectivity. In addition, the servers themselves are worth $1.25 million. Since Megaupload is no longer paying for service, Carpathia would like to re-allocate the servers for the use of other customers.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has intervened in the case on behalf of Megaupload's users, some of whom used the service for legitimate file transfers. EFF has argued that these innocent users have a right to this data, and has threatened to sue to vindicate these users' rights.

Carpathia calls 25 petabytes an "historically and mind-bogglingly large amount of data," and argues that if that data needs to be preserved, someone else—the government, Megaupload, or an interested party such as the MPAA or EFF—should bear the costs of preserving the data. The problem is that so far no one has come up with a way to satisfy all interested parties. Megaupload is willing to take custody of the data, but the government and the MPAA have both objected, perhaps fearing that Megaupload would destroy evidence. The other parties—the government, EFF, and MPAA—have all said they're not willing to take custody of the servers.

Carpathia suggests several possible resolutions. One would be to allow Megaupload to put its site back online for a limited period of time so that legitimate users could download their data; after that, the data would be deleted and Carpathia would be free to do what it wanted with its servers. Another option would be for the courts to order a third party—most likely the government or Megaupload—to take custody of (and pay Carpathia for) the servers. A third would be for the parties to pay Carpathia for the costs of continuing to maintain the servers. Carpathia wants the government to pick one of these options, because right now the situation is costing it thousands of dollars a day.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/isp-storing-25-petabytes-of-megaupload-data-costs-us-9000-a-day.ars?clicked=related_right

[velik_m]

Kim Dotcom: The US Government is Wrong, Here’s Why

For the first time since his arrest in January, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom is responding to allegations in what he calls the “MPAA-sponsored” indictment. Eager to fight back, Dotcom refutes several “nonsense” claims made by the Government. In addition, he shows that Mega wasn’t a big bad pirate haven, but a legitimate service that may have been shutdown for political reasons.

For a man who’s the main defendant in one of the biggest criminal cases ever brought in the US, Kim Dotcom is surprisingly composed.

The Megaupload founder is convinced of his innocence, and instead of letting fear or anger get to him, he is excited. Deep into the night, Dotcom digs through heaps of paperwork, collecting evidence that shows how he was framed by the US Government.

Talking to TorrentFreak by phone, he gives example after example of why he thinks the indictment twists the truth. While Megaupload’s lawyers are still working on the first motion in response to the indictment, he agreed to exclusively share the first details with us.

...


http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-the-us-government-is-wrong-heres-why-120326/

[velik_m]

German Pirate Party Scores Second State Victory

Anti-copyright group wins four seats in German state election in Saarland.

COLOGNE, Germany - Proving its victory in Berlin state elections last year wasn't a fluke, Germany's Pirate Party entered its second state parliament this weekend, winning four seats in the tiny state of Saarland.

The Pirates, whose party platform includes a pledge to reform or abolish online copyright laws, won 7.4 percent of the vote, making them the fourth-largest party in the state, ahead of the Greens.

Copyright discussions played little role in the Pirate's successful campaign, however. The party instead focused on issues of social and political reform.

The victory follows last year's state election in Berlin, where Pirates won 15 parliamentary seats, taking nearly 9 percent of the vote.

Saarland's election results will silence any pundits who wrote of the Pirates as a short-term phenomenon. Now most are predicting they will secure seats in the two other states set to go to the polls this year: the northern region of Schleswig-Holstein and North-Rhein Westphalia, Germany's largest state by population. The regional battles are prepartion for Germany's national elections, which will be held next year.

Since their Berlin victory, the Pirate Party has consistently polled over five percent nationwide -- the minimum required to enter parliament in Germany's proportional representation voting system.



http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/german-pirate-party-election-304058

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,823738,00.html

[Blake]

http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-the-us-government-is-wrong-heres-why-120326/

lol framed!

[velik_m]

lol framed!

yeah i found that part funny too. His excuses don't strike me as particularly strong either. I guess we shall see...

[velik_m]

Sony tries cutting off homebrew exploits, takes down Vita game downloads

Sony's never-ending battle to control the content that runs on its hardware has moved to a new front on the Vita, with the company taking down downloadable versions of two PSP titles in response to reports that they include programming holes that allow the Vita to run unsigned, homebrew code.

On March 1, the hackers at Wololo.net first publicly announced that their homebrew Vita Half Byte Loader (VHBL) worked by exploiting a vulnerability in a downloadable copy of the PSP title Motorstorm: Arctic Edge, releasing a video of Doom being loaded onto the system by way of proof. Sony responded quickly, removing Motorstorm from the PlayStation Store just before VHBL was officially released the next day.

Users that had previously downloaded Motorstorm could still use the exploit, though, and the hackers claim they went to great pains to ensure that a few thousand people in and around the hacking community were able to download the game before the details of the hack were made public. Previous purchasers are no longer able to redownload the game from the PlayStation Store, however, potentially leaving some innocent bystanders without access to legally purchased titles if they delete their existing copy (Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the matter).

Fast forward to Sunday, when the Wololo hackers teased that they had found another exploit in Japanese and European PlayStation Store download Everybody's Tennis that could, in the hackers' tongue-in-cheek words, be "extremely dangerous for [Sony's] business," by letting people play titles "such as 20 year-old 8-bit games and 154 different versions of Pong." Following form, Sony once again removed the game from the PSN store just before the hackers publicly released the new exploit yesterday.

Wololo claims its VHBL hack is useful only for running homebrew software and not for playing pirated PSP or Vita games. Still, Sony has taken a zero-tolerance approach to players running unauthorized code on its systems in the past, usually responding to breaches by releasing re-secured firmware updates, which hackers subsequently re-hacked.

Now, Sony instead seems to be using its control of PSP game downloads on the Vita to try to cut off the supply of exploitable games as quickly as possible, opening up a new front in the war for control of the Vita hardware. They might have an uphill battle on their hands, though, as Wololo's hackers claimed to "collectively have access to about 5 to 10 user mode game exploits in psp games" earlier this month, and have created a so-called "exploit factory" to easily port VHBL as new exploits are found. We could be entering a new era in the Sony hacking wars, where exploits are first released quietly before being publicly deployed as tactical weapons that whittle down the number of downloadable PSP titles available from the PlayStation Store.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/03/sony-tries-cutting-off-homebrew-exploits-takes-down-vita-game-downloads.ars

Sony :lol

[velik_m]

RapidShare Declared Legal In Court, With a Twist

A Higher Regional Court in Germany has ruled that file-hosting service RapidShare operates legally in Germany. The verdict is the result of a long-standing legal battle between the Swiss-based file-hosting service and music rights group GEMA. It’s not all good for RapidShare though, as the company now has to monitor external websites for incoming links to infringing files.

In the aftermath of the Megaupload shutdown, people have been keeping a close eye on court cases involving other file-hosting services, RapidShare included.

During the past several years RapidShare has made tremendous efforts to cooperate with copyright holders and limit copyright infringements. But this couldn’t prevent the company from getting involved in a handful of lawsuits against rightsholders.

Two week ago, a press release published by copyright holders claimed that RapidShare had suffered an enormous defeat in court. However, now that the court has published its final decision, RapidShare is claiming a victory of its own.

In the verdict of RapidShare’s legal dispute against the music rights group GEMA, the Higher Regional Court in Hamburg explicitly recognizes that RapidShare’s business model is legal. This news is music to the ears of the file-hoster.
...


http://torrentfreak.com/rapidshare-declared-legal-in-court-with-a-twist-120327/

[velik_m]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/03/30/infinite_copyright_is_killing_culture.html

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2012/03/30/infinite_copyright_is_killing_culture/1333108727097.png.CROP.rectangle3-large.png

[velik_m]

The War on Piracy = The War on Drugs...

But does the comparison really make sense? After all, the drug trade features violent cartels, 'mules,' overdoses, gang warfare... pooping condoms after cross-Atlantic flights! By comparison, the war on piracy involves ripping off Metallica; it features a finite number of supply channels (ISPs) and lots of legal alternatives...

Yet this is an analogy that keeps sticking, for a number of reasons. Both 'wars' feature endless crackdowns, shakedowns and raids, not to mention persistent 'abuse' and a seemingly unstoppable level of 'usage'. And just like the government, this is a memo that executives in the traditional music industry are getting, but rarely discussing. Which why it was surprising to hear it out loud from Rio Caraeff, CEO of VEVO, a joint venture involving three out of the four major labels:

"Piracy is a bit like the war on drugs, it's an unwinnable war in my opinion. But that's not necessarily the opinion of the industry, but I think the solution is to provide access to entertainment to as many people as possible, through a variety of different models – including the free models."

But Caraeff only has a limited vote. And all indications point to a far greater level of anti-piracy enforcement ahead, especially as an increasingly-agitated Hollywood steps in. That means stepped-up action against infringing companies, more raids against high-profile operations like MegaUpload, and according to sources, more direct action against the executives and employees at these companies. And, continued clampdowns against the users snorting all that free music...


http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120330drugs

[leemajors]

yeah i found that part funny too. His excuses don't strike me as particularly strong either. I guess we shall see...

if they did mess up on the indictment that could unravel the whole thing. doubt it will get that far, but at least we get to hear everything these days eventually.

[Winehole23]

Support for Germany's (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/intl/germany-PLGEO000003.topic) maverick Pirate Party has rocketed since its strong showing in a regional election, a poll showed on Tuesday, potentially raising the chances of a "grand coalition" of the two major parties taking power next year.

The Pirates, who champion Internet freedom, would win 12 percent today, the Forsa poll showed, their best result since the founding of the party in 2006 and up from the 7.4 percent they won in last month's election in the tiny state of Saarland.

That puts them only just behind Germany's third most popular party, the Greens, who were down one percentage point from the previous week at 13 percent, the poll showed.

Chancellor Angela Merkel (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/angela-merkel-PEPLT007499.topic)'s junior coalition partner, the pro-business Free Democrats (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/democratic-party-ORGOV0000005.topic) (FDP), was on 3 percent, the Forsa poll showed, up slightly from the last poll but still below the 5 percent threshold for entering the Bundestag lower house.

The FDP crashed out of the Saarland assembly in the March election there with just 1.2 percent.

The success of the Pirates has wider national implications.

By eating into support for other smaller parties, they may leave a "grand coalition" of the two major parties - Merkel's centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU) and the opposition centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) - as the only option for Germany after a 2013 national election.

Political analysts say the Pirate Party is building the momentum to win seats in state assemblies in Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) in elections scheduled for May.

Commenting on the jump in support for the Pirates, Forsa head Manfred Guellner told stern magazine, which published the poll, that they were taking votes from all the other parties.

"They are not confined to a narrow clientele, they are effectively a national party in miniature," he said.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-germany-pirates-pollbre83207r-20120403,0,2782373.story

[Winehole23]

While most folks are looking elsewhere, it appears that Congress is trying to see if it can sneak an absolutely awful "cybersecurity" bill through Congress. We've discussed how there's been some fighting (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/17430217786/senators-ramp-up-fear-mongering-to-try-to-rush-through-cybersecurity-bill.shtml) on the Senate side concerning which cybersecurity bill to support, but there's a similar battle going on in the House, and it appears that the Rogers-Ruppersberger bill, known as CISPA (for Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) or HR 3523 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523) is winning out, with a planned attempt to move it through Congress later this month. The bill is awful -- and yet has somehow already gained over 100 sponsors (http://intelligence.house.gov/press-release/co-sponsors-top-100-rogers-ruppersberger-bipartisan-cyber-bill). In an attempt to pretend that this isn't a "SOPA-like" problem, the supporters of this bill are highlighting the fact that Facebook, Microsoft and TechAmerica are supporting this bill.

However, this is a terrible bill for a variety of reasons. Even if we accept the mantra that new cybersecurity laws are needed (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120308/12180318040/slow-down-homeland-security-does-everyone-really-agree-that-we-need-cybersecurity-legislation-now.shtml) (despite a near total lack of evidence to support this -- and, no, fearmongering (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/17430217786/senators-ramp-up-fear-mongering-to-try-to-rush-through-cybersecurity-bill.shtml) about planes falling from the sky doesn't count), this bill has serious problems. As CDT warned (https://www.cdt.org/blogs/greg-nojeim/112cyber-intelligence-bill-threatens-privacy-and-civilian-control) when this bill first came out, it's way too broad and overreaching:

However, the bill goes much further, permitting ISPs to funnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls. The bill does not specify which agencies ISPs could disclose customer data to, but the structure and incentives in the bill raise a very real possibility that the National Security Agency or the DOD’s Cybercommand would be the primary recipient. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120402/04425118325/forget-sopa-you-should-be-worried-about-this-cybersecurity-bill.shtml

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I'm not going to try to understand this legalese at the moment, running low in time... maybe someone else?


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION SHARING.

(a) In General- Title XI of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 442 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION SHARING

`Sec. 1104. (a) Intelligence Community Sharing of Cyber Threat Intelligence With Private Sector-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence.

`(2) SHARING AND USE OF CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE- The procedures established under paragraph (1) shall provide that classified cyber threat intelligence may only be--

`(A) shared by an element of the intelligence community with--

`(i) certified entities; or

`(ii) a person with an appropriate security clearance to receive such cyber threat intelligence;

`(B) shared consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States; and

`(C) used by a certified entity in a manner which protects such cyber threat intelligence from unauthorized disclosure.

`(3) SECURITY CLEARANCE APPROVALS- The Director of National Intelligence shall issue guidelines providing that the head of an element of the intelligence community may, as the head of such element considers necessary to carry out this subsection--

`(A) grant a security clearance on a temporary or permanent basis to an employee or officer of a certified entity;

`(B) grant a security clearance on a temporary or permanent basis to a certified entity and approval to use appropriate facilities; and

`(C) expedite the security clearance process for a person or entity as the head of such element considers necessary, consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States.

`(4) NO RIGHT OR BENEFIT- The provision of information to a private-sector entity under this subsection shall not create a right or benefit to similar information by such entity or any other private-sector entity.

`(b) Private Sector Use of Cybersecurity Systems and Sharing of Cyber Threat Information-

`(1) IN GENERAL-

`(A) CYBERSECURITY PROVIDERS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cybersecurity provider, with the express consent of a protected entity for which such cybersecurity provider is providing goods or services for cybersecurity purposes, may, for cybersecurity purposes--

`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such protected entity; and

`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity designated by such protected entity, including, if specifically designated, the Federal Government.

`(B) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITIES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes--

`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such self-protected entity; and

`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.

`(2) USE AND PROTECTION OF INFORMATION- Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)--

`(A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing, including, if requested, appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;

`(B) may not be used by an entity to gain an unfair competitive advantage to the detriment of the protected entity or the self-protected entity authorizing the sharing of information; and

`(C) if shared with the Federal Government--

`(i) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code;

`(ii) shall be considered proprietary information and shall not be disclosed to an entity outside of the Federal Government except as authorized by the entity sharing such information; and

`(iii) shall not be used by the Federal Government for regulatory purposes.

`(3) EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY- No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected entity, self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self-protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in good faith--

`(A) for using cybersecurity systems or sharing information in accordance with this section; or

`(B) for not acting on information obtained or shared in accordance with this section.

`(4) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION- The submission of information under this subsection to the Federal Government shall not satisfy or affect any requirement under any other provision of law for a person or entity to provide information to the Federal Government.

`(c) Report on Information Sharing- The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board established under section 1061 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) shall annually submit to Congress a report in unclassified form containing--

`(1) a review of the sharing and use of information by the Federal Government under this section and the procedures and guidelines established or issued by the Director of National Intelligence under subsection (a); and

`(2) any recommendations of the Board for improvements or modifications to such authorities to address privacy and civil liberties concerns.

`(d) Federal Preemption- This section supersedes any statute of a State or political subdivision of a State that restricts or otherwise expressly regulates an activity authorized under subsection (b).

`(e) Savings Clause- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any other authority to use a cybersecurity system or to identify, obtain, or share cyber threat intelligence or cyber threat information.

`(f) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) CERTIFIED ENTITY- The term `certified entity' means a protected entity, self-protected entity, or cybersecurity provider that--

`(A) possesses or is eligible to obtain a security clearance, as determined by the Director of National Intelligence; and

`(B) is able to demonstrate to the Director of National Intelligence that such provider or such entity can appropriately protect classified cyber threat intelligence.

`(2) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE- The term `cyber threat intelligence' means information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from--

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(3) CYBERSECURITY PROVIDER- The term `cybersecurity provider' means a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes.

`(4) CYBERSECURITY PURPOSE- The term `cybersecurity purpose' means the purpose of ensuring the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguarding, a system or network, including protecting a system or network from--

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(5) CYBERSECURITY SYSTEM- The term `cybersecurity system' means a system designed or employed to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguard, a system or network, including protecting a system or network from--

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(6) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION- The term `cyber threat information' means information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from--

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(7) PROTECTED ENTITY- The term `protected entity' means an entity, other than an individual, that contracts with a cybersecurity provider for goods or services to be used for cybersecurity purposes.

`(8) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITY- The term `self-protected entity' means an entity, other than an individual, that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself.'.

(b) Procedures and Guidelines- The Director of National Intelligence shall--

(1) not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, establish procedures under paragraph (1) of section 1104(a) of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a) of this section, and issue guidelines under paragraph (3) of such section 1104(a); and

(2) following the establishment of such procedures and the issuance of such guidelines, expeditiously distribute such procedures and such guidelines to appropriate Federal Government and private-sector entities.

(c) Initial Report- The first report required to be submitted under subsection (c) of section 1104 of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall be submitted not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) Table of Contents Amendment- The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`Sec. 1104. Cyber threat intelligence and information sharing.'.

[Winehole23]

Labeling the criminal prosecution of seven top Megaupload operatives “unduly adventurous,” attorneys for the indicted file-sharing service claim the U.S. government wants to destroy “exculpatory” evidence so it can prevail in the largest criminal copyright case ever brought.


“In essence, the government has taken what it wants from the scene of the alleged crime and is content that the remaining evidence, even if it is exculpatory or otherwise relevant to the defense, be destroyed,” defense attorney Paul Brinkman wrote (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/04/megadatafiling.pdf) (.pdf) the Virginia federal judge presiding over the case.


The court filing, lodged Friday, focuses on an unprecedented amount of data — 25 petabytes in all — that was seized by the government from Megaupload’s 1,100 servers in January. A hearing on the issue is scheduled for Friday before U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady in Virginia.


The government has said it has copied “selected data (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/megaupload-server-purge/)” from the servers and said the 25 million gigabytes of data stored on hosting service Carpathia’s servers can be wiped out. Brinkman claims the government “cherry picked” relevant data “to support its theories of criminal misconduct.”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/megaupload-defense-hobbled/

[velik_m]

German Pirate Party overtakes Greens, survey by Forsa shows

Germany's upstart Pirate Party has overtaken the Greens to become the third strongest political grouping in the country, according to a new poll.

The survey by Forsa for broadcaster RTL showed support for the Pirates, whose platform is based on internet freedom and more direct participation in politics, pushing up to 13 percent and outstripping the Greens for the first time.

An off-shoot of a party that was founded in Sweden six years ago, the German Pirates came out of nowhere last September to win seats in the city government in Berlin.

At first dismissed as a passing fad by the established parties, the Pirates followed up their success in Berlin with a strong showing in the state of Saarland last month and now look on track to make it into regional assemblies in two other states -- North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig Holstein -- next month.

more (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-276991-german-pirate-party-overtakes-greens-survey-by-forsa-shows.html)

[Blake]

I'm wondering if that pirate party is as similar to Ron Paul as it appears.

[Winehole23]

Nicholas Merrill is planning to revolutionize online privacy with a concept as simple as it is ingenious: a telecommunications provider designed from its inception to shield its customers from surveillance.



Merrill, 39, who previously ran a New York-based Internet provider, told CNET that he's raising funds to launch a national "non-profit telecommunications provider dedicated to privacy, using ubiquitous encryption" that will sell mobile phone service and, for as little as $20 a month, Internet connectivity.



The ISP would not merely employ every technological means at its disposal, including encryption and limited logging, to protect its customers. It would also -- and in practice this is likely more important -- challenge government surveillance demands of dubious legality or constitutionality.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57412225-281/this-internet-provider-pledges-to-put-your-privacy-first-always/

[ElNono]

Good luck with that... even blackberry had to bend over, and they're a canadian company...

[mouse]

China to the rescue?

[velik_m]

I'm wondering if that pirate party is as similar to Ron Paul as it appears.

They are both getting support because people are getting tired of corrupt mainstream politics. Beyond that i doubt there are any similarities.

[Blake]

They are both getting support because people are getting tired of corrupt mainstream politics. Beyond that i doubt there are any similarities.

Yeah, I simply meant similar in cult status.

[Winehole23]

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland), passed (in the US House) on a vote of 248 to 168.http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/house-passes-cispa/

[Winehole23]

Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that's not even the worst part.


The vote followed the debate on amendments, several of which were passed. Among them was an absolutely terrible change (http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/Reports/HRPT-112-HR3523HR4628.pdf) (pdf and embedded below—scroll to amendment #6) to the definition of what the government can do with shared information, put forth by Rep. Quayle. Astonishingly, it was described as limiting the government's power, even though it in fact expands it by adding more items to the list of acceptable purposes for which shared information can be used. Even more astonishingly, it passed with a near-unanimous vote. The CISPA that was just approved by the House is much worse than the CISPA being discussed as recently as this morning.


Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.


Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power.


Somehow, incredibly, this was described as limiting CISPA, but it accomplishes the exact opposite. This is very, very bad.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml

[velik_m]

The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK ISPs, court rules

File-sharing site The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK internet service providers, the High Court has ruled.

The Swedish website hosts links to download mostly pirated free music and video.

Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site.
...


http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17894176

[Blake]

Poor pirate bay

[Winehole23]

The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would require firms, including Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, to build in backdoors for government surveillance (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20032518-281.html).



In meetings with industry representatives, the White House, and U.S. senators, senior FBI officials argue the dramatic shift in communication from the telephone system to the Internet has made it far more difficult for agents to wiretap Americans suspected of illegal activities, CNET has learned.



The FBI general counsel's office has drafted a proposed law that the bureau claims is the best solution: requiring that social-networking Web sites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly.



"If you create a service, product, or app that allows a user to communicate, you get the privilege of adding that extra coding," an industry representative who has reviewed the FBI's draft legislation told CNET. The requirements apply only if a threshold of a certain number of users is exceeded, according to a second industry representative briefed on it.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now/

[velik_m]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now/

I'm sure this will make black hats happy.

[Winehole23]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-court-no-1st-amendment-protection-for-facebook-like-20120504,0,3009138.story

[Winehole23]

https://www.eff.org/tpp-another-backroom-deal

[velik_m]

Reddit Founder And Activists Aim To Build A 'Bat-Signal For The Internet'

The “blackout” of Web sites to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in January was an unprecedented show of Internet solidarity against bad legislation. But with new net-threatening bills like ACTA and CISPA popping out of Congress on a practically monthly basis, one online entrepreneur and a group of net activists want to enable regular SOPA-style mass protests at the push of a button.
...


http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/05/25/reddit-founder-and-activists-aim-to-build-a-bat-signal-for-the-internet/

[velik_m]

Kim Dotcom wins right to FBI files

A Kiwi judge has overruled the wishes of the US Government and granted internet millionaire Kim Dotcom the right to information gathered by the FBI in the copyright case against him.

The US had stringently opposed the piracy-accused's application for "disclosure", citing its treaty agreements with New Zealand which meant the process was not mandatory.

In making his decision, in the Auckland District Court yesterday, Judge David Harvey said Dotcom's right to a fair trial was at risk if he was not given disclosure.

"A denial of the provision of information that could enable a proper adversarial hearing, in my view, would amount to a denial of the opportunity to contest and that would effectively mean that the process is one sided and in reality becomes more of an administrative one," Judge Harvey said.
...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7013436/Kim-Dotcom-wins-right-to-FBI-files

[Spurminator]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120602/couple-to-wed-balk-at-extra-music-fees-120602/#ixzz1wkLDLgEi


Couples expecting to wed should budget a little more for their big day, as the Copyright Board of Canada recently approved new fees to play recorded music at large gatherings, including weddings.

The fees -- which also apply to events and venues such as parades, festivals, and karaoke bars -- are being charged in an effort to protect and compensate performers and record labels for their work.

The fees range in price depending on the size of the event and how the music will be used. At events with fewer than one hundred people, the fees start at $9.25 per day.

For couples planning a wedding, a reception of 400 guests will cost them $27.76. If dancing is involved, that fee doubles to $55.52.

...

The new fees are retro-active to 2008, meaning people may receive a bill for an event they've thrown in the past. There will also be inspectors who will work to ensure the new rules are being followed.

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Court Lets Student’s $675,000 File-Sharing Fine Stand

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17ne48c9gowe9jpg/xlarge.jpg

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a $675,000 file-sharing damages award that a jury levied against a college student for making 30 music tracks available on a peer-to-peer network.

Without comment, the high court, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer not participating, declined an appeal brought by former Boston college student Joel Tenenbaum. His petition (.pdf) claimed that Congress did not intend "unrestrained discretionary jury damage awards against individual citizens for copyright infringement."


http://gizmodo.com/5912226/supreme-court-lets-students-675000-file+sharing-fine-stand

[Blake]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120602/couple-to-wed-balk-at-extra-music-fees-120602/#ixzz1wkLDLgEi

The strange part of that is the dance fee.

That part makes no sense.

[velik_m]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120602/couple-to-wed-balk-at-extra-music-fees-120602/#ixzz1wkLDLgEi

This is a good development, the more absurd the laws and rules will be - the quicker copyrights will go the way of the dodo.

[Blake]

This is a good development, the more absurd the laws and rules will be - the quicker copyrights will go the way of the dodo.

wrong, imo.

other than the dance fee, it's not absurd. People are spoiled, imo.

[velik_m]

Germany Increases 'You Are All Pirates' Tax On Solid State Media By 2000%

Techflaws alerts us to an announcement by ZPÜ, the organization responsible for setting the levy on storage media in Germany, that fees will rise rather significantly (German original). For a USB stick with a capacity greater than 4 Gbytes, the tax would increase from 8 eurocents (about 10 cents) to 1.56 euros (about $1.93), a rise of 1850%; for a memory card bigger than 4 Gbytes, the fee would go up from 8 eurocents to 1.95 euros (about $2.42), an increase of 2338%.

No justification for such a huge jump was offered, but since one of the constituent members of ZPÜ is the German music collection society GEMA, which seems to have an unlimited sense of entitlement when it comes to demanding money from the public, that's hardly a surprise.

In particular, no rationale is given for including memory cards, which are used almost exclusively in cameras to record content produced by end-users -- so the idea that the levy is somehow justified as a way of compensating creators for revenue supposedly "lost" by piracy is manifestly absurd.

Basically, this outdated and insulting approach treats all Germans using digital storage as if they were pirates. Of course, arbitrarily imposing 2000% tax hikes on storage is probably the quickest way to turn them into something much more dangerous to GEMA and its friends: ardent supporters of the German Pirate Party....

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/07161319164/germany-increases-you-are-all-pirates-tax-solid-state-media-2000.shtml#comments

[velik_m]

Dotcom search warrants declared illegal (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/dotcom-search-warrants-declared-illegal-ca-122374)

[ElNono]

EU Commissioner Reveals He Will Ignore Any Rejection of ACTA

Dupple tips a story at Techdirt about comments from EU commissioner Karel De Gucht, who made some discouraging remarks to the EU International Trade committee about the opposition to ACTA: "If you decide for a negative vote before the European Court rules, let me tell you that the Commission will nonetheless continue to pursue the current procedure before the Court, as we are entitled to do. A negative vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/12333619468/eu-commissioner-reveals-he-will-simply-ignore-any-rejection-acta-european-parliament-next-week.shtml). ... If the Court questions the conformity of the agreement with the Treaties we will assess at that stage how this can be addressed (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/12/477&format=HTML)." De Gucht also spoke about proposing clarifications to ACTA if Parliament declined to ratify it, which, as Techdirt points out, doesn't make much sense: "Remember that ACTA is now signed, and cannot be altered; so De Gucht is instead trying to fob off European politicians with this vague idea of 'clarifications' — as if more vagueness could somehow rectify the underlying problems of an already dangerously-vague treaty."

[Clipper Nation]

So, basically, old uncreative white executives want to legislate a new distribution model out of existence instead of adapting to it.... not a surprise, tbh....

[velik_m]

Kim Dotcom: Joe Biden Ordered the Megaupload Shutdown

Kim Dotcom says he knows who ordered the shutdown of his company and related sites. The Megaupload founder informs TorrentFreak that he has insider information which reveals that none other than Vice President Joe Biden directed attorney Neil MacBride to target the site. Biden is known to be one of the best friends of former Senator Chris Dodd, who’s now heading the MPAA.

When Megaupload was raided in January, questions were raised as to why the U.S. Government acted so aggressively against a company that seemingly played by the rules.

It’s no secret that the MPAA provides the authorities with “leads” for criminal investigations on a regular basis, but considering the size and location of the company Megaupload was not an ordinary target.

Soon after Kim Dotcom was released from custody he pointed the finger at Washington, arguing that the Mega investigation was a ‘gift’ to Hollywood, facilitated by corrupt Government forces. In the months that followed Dotcom and his team researched the motivations of the U.S. Government which resulted in some revealing findings.

While Megaupload’s founder is cautious about revealing too much early on, he says he has information which shows that it was none other than Vice President Joe Biden who called for the Megaupload takedown.

more... (https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-joe-biden-ordered-the-megaupload-shutdown-120703/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

[Winehole23]

On October 23, 2007, the U.S., E.U., Canada, and a handful of other countries announced plans (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2318/125/) to the negotiate the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The behind-the-scenes discussions had apparently been ongoing for several years, leading some countries to believe that a full agreement could be concluded within a year to coincide with the end of the Bush administration. Few paid much attention as the agreement itself was shrouded in secrecy. ACTA details slowly began to emerge, however, including revelations that lobby groups had been granted preferential access, the location of various meetings, and troubling details about the agreement itself.

As the public pressure mounted, the talks dragged along with participating countries increasingly defensive about the secrecy and the substance. ACTA was ultimately concluded in 2010 - years after the initial target - and some of the most troubling provisions were abandoned. Yet the final agreement still raised serious concerns (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6477/125/), both for the way the agreement was concluded as well as for the substance.

When ACTA was formally signed by most participants in October 2011 in Tokyo, few would have anticipated that less than a year later, the treaty would face massive public protests and abandonment by leading countries. But with tens of thousands taking to the streets (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6270/125/) in Europe earlier this year, ACTA became the poster child for secretive, one-sided IP agreements that do not reflect the views and hopes of the broader public. This morning, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly against the agreement, effectively killing ACTA within the EU. The vote was 478 against, 39 in favour, with 165 abstentions This is a remarkable development that was virtually unthinkable even a year ago. Much credit goes to the thousands of Europeans who spoke out against ACTA and to the Members of the European Parliament who withstood enormous political pressure to vote against the deal.

The European developments have had a ripple effect, with the recent Australian parliamentary committee recommendation (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6562/125/) to delay ACTA ratification and the mounting opposition (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6518/125/) around the world. ACTA is not yet dead - it may still eke out the necessary six ratifications in a year or two for it to take effect - but it is badly damaged and will seemingly never achieve the goals of its supporters as a model for other countries to adopt and to emerge as a new global standard for IP enforcement. That said, ACTA supporters will not take today's decision as the final verdict. In the coming weeks and months, we can expect new efforts to revive the agreement within Europe and to find alternative means to implement its provisions. That suggests the fight will continue, but for today, it is worth celebrating how the seemingly impossible - stopping a one-sided, secretly negotiated global IP agreement - became possible. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6578/125/

[velik_m]

BitTorrent usage increases in Europe, following the blockade of The Pirate Bay

In a twist that will surprise no one except the RIAA, MPAA, BREIN, and other anti-piracy lobbies, the amount of BitTorrent traffic has stayed the same or increased in Europe following the blockade of The Pirate Bay in the UK, Netherlands, and other countries.

This news comes from XS4All, one of the largest European ISPs, which has published a graph of the network traffic associated with the BitTorrent protocol (pictured below). The left side of the graph is January 2012, the right side is June 2012, and the red line signifies February, when Dutch ISPs were ordered to block The Pirate Bay. While it’s hard to make a qualified decision without seeing data from 2011, it definitely seems like traffic hasn’t decreased — and might have even increased slightly. This data aligns with research from the University of Amsterdam, which also found that the Dutch Pirate Bay blockade had no effect on the total amount of BitTorrent traffic.

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/graph2-300x101.png

...


http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/132328-bittorrent-usage-increases-in-europe-following-the-blockade-of-the-pirate-bay

[Winehole23]

uly 10, 2012 | By Carolina Rossini Is the TPP - framed as a "21st century" agreement - the best way to build a 21st century society?



Last week, at the latest round of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations in San Diego, California, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced (http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/blog/2012/july/ustr-introduces-new-copyright-exceptions-limitations-provision) that it has proposed a new provision on limitations and exceptions to copyright. It's nice to hear about a proposal that seems to expand limitations like fair use, and it is also nice to see that – finally - the USTR is listening to the technology industries (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/04/trans-pacific-trade-talks-deal-must-protect-tech-i/?page=1#article). However, the draft treaty itself is still secret (http://keepthewebopen.com/tpp) so the implications of this new provision are in fact ambiguous. We can’t know what their proposal means for copyright without knowing what’s in the rest of the chapter. It could be good, it could be bad, it could be indifferent, it could be LOLCATs.
The TPP agreement has been framed by the USTR as a 21st century agreement (http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/november/trans-pacific-partnership-leaders-statement), but we’re still not convinced it’s an agreement adequate for 21st century society-- especially in an environment where the public, Congress (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120629/13095119537/ustr-rejects-rep-issas-request-to-observe-tpp-negotiations.shtml), and civil rights organizations are denied (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/trans-pacific-partnership-documents-sherrod-brown-jeff-merkley-ron-wyden-robert-menendez_n_1624956.html) access to the treaty’s official text, while corporate representatives have full access to it (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/23220319444/ustr-gives-mpaa-full-online-access-to-tpp-text-still-wont-share-with-senate-staffers.shtml). In a world where you can access the complete state code of Utah in Github to engage citizens in legislative drafting (https://github.com/divegeek/utahcode), secrecy and backroom deals are not exactly a 21st century way to build the 21st century society.https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/21st-century-agreement-is-really-best-way

[Winehole23]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/op-ed-eus-rejection-of-acta-subtly-changed-trade-law-landscape/?utm_source=Ars+Technica+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9b59066c1e-September_02_2011_Newsletter&utm_medium=email

[ElNono]

Rethinking How Congress Pushes Copyright Laws

"Lamar Smith just can't get a break. The Texas congressman and widely despised author of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) ruffled the Internet's feathers once again this week with the quiet unveiling of a new piece of legislation that's drawing criticism for being plucked out of SOPA's language and rushed through Congress. The Intellectual Property Attaché Act (IPAA) would streamline the process by which the U.S. protects its intellectual property by enforcing U.S. copyright law abroad through specially assigned diplomats or attachés. These officers would report to a new agency-level position, the Assistant Secretary for Intellectual Property and push agendas that, according to the bill's language, are 'consistent with the economic interests of the United States, both domestically and abroad.'"

Related:
Washington Needs to Rethink How it Pushes These Copyright Laws (http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/7/12/washington-needs-to-rethink-how-it-pushes-these-copyright-laws)

SOPA Critics Cry Foul Over IP Attache bill (http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/sopa-critics-cry-foul-over-ip.php)

IP ATTACHE ACT (http://www.publicknowledge.org/ip-attache-act)

[Winehole23]

Earlier this year the sentences against the Pirate Bay defendants were made final. Aside from prison sentences, they will have to pay damages to the entertainment industries, including €550,000 to several major music labels. The court awarded the damages to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses. However, it now turns out that artists won’t see a penny of the money, as the labels have allocated it to IFPI to fund new anti-piracy campaigns.https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-loot-with-artists-120728/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak% 29

[Winehole23]

Imagine being invited to formally offer input on a huge piece of legislation, a proposed international agreement that could cover everything from intellectual property rights on the Internet to access to medicine to investment rights in the agreement’s signatory countries. For 10 minutes, you’d be able to say whatever you’d like about the proposed law—good, bad, or indifferent—to everyone involved in the negotiations. But there’s a caveat: All of your questions, all of your input, on what may be the most controversial part of the package, would have to be based on a version of the proposed international agreement that was 16 months old. And in that 16-month period, there were eight rounds of negotiations that could have changed any and all of the text to which you had access, but no one could tell you if that version was still accurate.

Would you still take the deal? This is not a hypothetical question; rather, this is the take-it-or-leave-it offer made to the public in May by the United States Trade Representative regarding the intellectual property rights chapter of the massively important but little-known Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).



Unfortunately, this modest but sad excuse for public participation was the best offer to ask questions and offer input to TPP negotiators since the public phase of the negotiations began more than two years ago. So civil society groups, academics, experts (“nerds”), and regular Joe concerned citizens said yes.




The above Kafkaesque scenario reveals a truly odd and disturbing 21st-century situation. Asking informed questions is probably man’s oldest form of letting someone know his views. But in 2012, with all of the technology that allows for unprecedented (if not totally unfettered) flows of information, the vestiges of 20th-century secrecy continue to permeate international lawmaking, as reflected in the negotiations of TPP.


http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/07/trans_pacific_partnership_agreement_tpp_could_radi cally_alter_intellectual_property_law.single.html

[boutons_deux]

New U.S. Limitations and Exceptions Proposal

The big copyright news from this round was that the U.S. publicly announced a new limitations and exceptions proposal consistent with, but apparently different from a standard used in previous free trade agreements and treaties (called the “three-step test”). The U.S. did not, however, release the text of this new proposal for public review and discourse.

While including limitations and exceptions in the agreement is a positive development, Public Knowledge remains concerned that the provision could be too limited or restrict countries’ ability to adopt new legitimate limits and exceptions to copyright for the public’s benefit. Of course, it’s extraordinarily difficult for PK or any other civil society group to provide meaningful input without knowing what the U.S. proposal actually says.

At the End of the Day? Still No Text.

On transparency, the bottom line has not changed. The text of the TPP is still hidden from the public while hundreds of corporate interests have ample access and influence. Even members of Congress are frustrated that the USTR won’t give them reasonable and convenient access for them and the trade experts on their staff.

The stakeholder engagement events did have value, but they do not and cannot replace an actual dialogue where the U.S. gives information to the public, in addition to receiving information from the public.

The outcry against the secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations grows louder by the day and harms the U.S.’s credibility on other important issues. The next round of negotiations will start September 6th in Leesburg, VA. The U.S. should use the time it has before then to open a dialogue, meaningfully engage with the public, and try to reclaim some legitimacy for the TPP


http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/tpp-recap-san-diego-negotiations

TTP legalizes UCA as beyond the reach national laws while giving UCA the right to sue the shit out of everybody in foreign countries.

[Winehole23]

The much discussed Cybersecurity Act of 2012, scheduled for a Senate vote this week, would make it easier for businesses to share information about cyber threats with the government. Essentially, the Act provides avenues for companies to collect sensitive user information that has the potential to be subject to government scrutiny. While some may concede to the notion that there is no such thing as privacy in a digital world, others are pushing for stricter regulation to ensure that privacy is indeed a top priority


Civil liberties groups say this bill is far better than others, such as CISPA, that have been put on the table this year, but there are still some major problems to be grappled with. Internet rights advocacy and lobbying group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), argues (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/why-nsa-cant-be-trusted-run-us-cybersecurity-programs) that:


The most significant problem…has to do with the language around monitoring and countermeasures. Currently, the bill specifically authorizes companies to use cybersecurity as an excuse for engaging in nearly unlimited monitoring of user data or countermeasures…this language is overly broad and…we’re going to be throwing our weight behind amendments to address these ongoing flaws.


Such amendments would ensure that the information companies share are only used for cybersecurity purposes and investigating cybercrimes — not for prosecuting drug crimes, tax dodging, etc. As Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/07/30/cybersecurity-act-needs-one-big-change-to-please-privacy-advocates/) puts it, “once a company gives the government cyberthreat information, the government shouldn’t be able to say ‘Hey, this email doesn’t have a virus. But it does say that Michael is late on his taxes. I’m going to send that to the IRS’.”


Also on the radar of privacy groups are the amendments proposed by Senator John McCain and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison that would place the National Security Agency (NSA) in charge of the cybersecurity systems, instead of civilian agencies. Cybersecurity policy is “inescapably tied to our online civil liberties”, writes EFF, so expanding NSA’s access from military intelligence to information about domestic communications undermines transparency in an area or policy in which accountability is essential.
http://www.article-3.com/privacy-or-security-cybersecurity-act-poses-tough-questions-for-the-senate-98083

[mouse]

File sharing is like an STD. You will never completely eliminate it and it will always feel good sharing it.


And I will do my part to help keep this shit going.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Picture037.jpg

[Winehole23]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/negotiations-2014-wipo-broadcasting-treaty-are-back

[Winehole23]

Universal Music Uses Bogus DMCA Claim To Take Down Negative Review Of Drake's Album

from the free-speech? dept

We keep talking about how the DMCA takedown process, all too frequently, is used to stifle speech, and defenders of the system claim that it's ridiculous to bring up the First Amendment in a discussion on copyright. But here's yet another (in a very long list) of examples. Henry Adaso wrote a short, but marginally negative review (http://rap.about.com/od/reviews/fr/Drake-Take-Care.htm) of Drake's album Take Care. The review was posted to About.com last November. The entire review reads:

Drake - 'Take Care'

A briefly entertaining, occasionally ponderous, sometimes lazy, sometimes brilliant, slow-rolling, rap-singy, bulls-eye missing, kitten-friendly, runway-ready, mega corny, lip-smacking, self-conscious, self-correcting, self-indulging, finely tuned, Houston infatuated, crowd pleasing, delightfully weird, emotionally raw, limp, wet, innocuous, cute, plush, brooding, musical, whimsical, exotic, pensive, V-necked, quasi-American, strutting, doting, cloying, safe alternative to sleeping pills.

Best Song: "Lord Knows"

Release Date: November 15, 2011 Not particularly positive, but not particularly scathing either. He also posted another post on About.com that merely pointed to that review (http://rap.about.com/b/2011/11/11/review-drake-take-care.htm), but included no additional content other than that he wrote a 50-word review.

Either way, both of those links are gone from Google's search. Why? Because just as someone filed a bogus DMCA (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120223/15102217856/key-techdirt-sopapipa-post-censored-bogus-dmca-takedown-notice.shtml) to take down one of our key SOPA posts, Universal Music, via the BPI (British RIAA) filed a DMCA notice with Google (http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=426801) claiming that both of those pages were infringing. That's clearly a false takedown, and pretty clearly designed to stifle a negative review.

http://i.imgur.com/8x3xW.png (http://imgur.com/8x3xW) Adaso discusses all of this in his own blog post (http://therapup.net/2012/08/why-umg-took-down-my-drake-review/), in which he suggests that perhaps Universal and BMI are purposely trying to take down negative reviews, though it's equally likely that they're just incredibly incompetent. Still, whether incompetence or malice, it's clear that the DMCA is being used to censor and stifle speech, and in this case it just so happens to be speech in the form of a negative review of a Universal Music Artist (a Universal Music artist who has also expressed displeasure (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/10313514841/drake-tells-universal-music-to-stop-taking-down-music-hes-leaking.shtml) with how Universal has used copyright law against his own best interests). http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/16393220051/universal-music-uses-bogus-dmca-claim-to-take-down-negative-review-drakes-album.shtml

[Blake]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/16393220051/universal-music-uses-bogus-dmca-claim-to-take-down-negative-review-drakes-album.shtml

From the ” expressed displeasure” link:

” .....as I'm sure people will quickly point out, he signed a contract with Universal, and that means he almost certainly handed over the rights to the music in question. To some extent, you can argue that if he was doing it for the people instead of for Universal Music, he shouldn't have signed a deal that gave all the rights to Universal Music.”

He pointed it out before I could quickly point it out.

[velik_m]

This is a pretty good article:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-johnny-cant-stream-how-video-copyright-went-insane/

[Winehole23]

good article. foreshadowed/explains this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/broadcasters-defeat-tv-streaming-service/

[Winehole23]

misfiled, but what the hey:
In a somewhat ironic move, the U.S. government has entered into an ebook deal with Apple that will see a range of government reports, documents, and ebooks published in Apple’s iBookstore. The partnership, which was announced earlier this week, coincides with the Department of Justice’s latest legal filings in its anti-trust suit against Apple.
Read more at http://www.cultofmac.com/186779/despite-the-dojs-anti-trust-case-the-u-s-government-is-happy-to-sell-ebooks-via-the-ibookstore/#VBdM1HsAJ9Y6SPgT.99

[Winehole23]

Hackers with the amorphous protest movement “Anonymous” and “AntiSec” said Monday night they caught the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) red-handed spying on Apple customers, and published over 1 million unique device identification numbers they allegedly pulled out of an FBI database.
In all, the hackers claimed that the FBI files they accessed had more than 12 million Apple UDIDs, the unique identifier associated with every iPhone and iPad that comes off the production line. They also said that most UDIDs in the FBI’s database had names, cell phone numbers and addresses attached to them, which were edited out before publication. Apple has sold nearly 200 million iPhones and more than 50 million iPads (http://www.asymco.com/2012/02/16/ios-devices-in-2011-vs-macs-sold-it-in-28-years/) since both devices’ debut.


Apple has been phasing out the UDID standard (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303665904577454653752815434.html), and recently made changes to prevent third-party applications from sending users’ UDIDs to unknown parties. Apple told a congressional inquiry in 2010 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20010948-260.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20) that it cannot track iPhones in real time, but a hacker named Eric Smith noted that third party applications can transmit UDIDs, which could potentially be linked to the owner and used to track that person.


And that’s precisely what hackers with Anonymous think the FBI was doing.
They claimed to have tapped into a Dell laptop owned by Special Agent Christopher K. Stangl, an FBI cyber security expert. They downloaded several files, including one that contained “12,367,232 Apple iOS devices including Unique Device Identifiers (UDID)” and other personal information, they wrote in a text file published online (http://pastebin.com/nfVT7b0Z). “[The] personal details fields referring to people appears many times empty leaving the whole list incompleted [sic] on many parts. no other file on the same folder makes mention about this list or its purpose.”


While it’s not immediately clear what the FBI is doing with the Apple UDIDs and detailed information on device owners, Gizmodo pointed out (http://gizmodo.com/5940183/antisec-leaks-1-million-apple-device-ids-obtained-during-fbi-breach) that the acronym “NCFTA” could stand for the National Cyber-Forensics & Training Alliance (http://www.ncfta.net/Index.aspx), a nonprofit that acts as an information-sharing gateway between private industry and law enforcement.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/04/anonymous-claims-hack-caught-fbi-spying-on-apple-customers/

[Wild Cobra]

WH...

Off topic, but why do I only notice you here after 3AM Pacific time?

[Winehole23]

I get up early these days. Occasionally I'll pull an all-nighter.

[Wild Cobra]

I get up early these days. Occasionally I'll pull an all-nighter.
Well, I get off work 23:30 Pacific time, or later if I work OT. I'm just surprised to see you here, and until about 11AM sometimes.